![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lorraine on June 20, 2001, at 22:57:37
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2001, at 14:35:57
> > 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?You might have warned them. I don't remember and since I don't even open messages with that type of header.... I do wish you would think about taking a harder line. I know I would appreciate it.
>
> > > > it brings me back to the issue of charging a price of admission to be on this board.
> > >
> > > How small? :-)
> >
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 know Bob, if the fee is going to be $25 a year, I don't think it makes sense to do it quarterly. It's just more hassel for you and the members. I don't think anyone would object to paying $25 in a lump sum and if you use credit cards.... But you might want to do a trial balloon on the $25 because others might feel differently.
I was also thinking about the notion of a fund-drive like they do on public radio. Someone else suggested this and I think we kind of got bogged down in the details. But, rather than suspend posting on the board, you might think about having an automatic tag on message for each post saying "Have you made your contribution yet? The fund drive is ___% of full funding. etc..." If people want to get rid of the message on their post, they must make their contribution. Just a thought.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2001, at 7:49:56
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 16:50:10
> > > > > 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.Hmm, I suppose it could go that way, too, I hadn't thought of that...
> > > 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.
>
> I 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?If a benefactor wants to step forward, that would be great, but although it would be a change, and maybe even a sad one, it wouldn't necessarily make it less special, would it?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2001, at 8:01:37
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Lorraine on June 20, 2001, at 22:57:37
> > > It's the people who use headings likes "YOU'RE ALL DRUG ADDICTS" that I am talking about.
> >
> > Fair enough. Maybe I should take a harder line on that. Did I just let that go and not even warn that person?
>
> You might have warned them. I don't remember and since I don't even open messages with that type of header.... I do wish you would think about taking a harder line. I know I would appreciate it.That's a good policy, not even to open those posts. If I were to take a harder line, would that mean doing more than just warning them? Blocking them after a "first offense"? Zero tolerance?
> 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 know Bob, if the fee is going to be $25 a year, I don't think it makes sense to do it quarterly. It's just more hassel for you and the members.Right, but there's another reason I've been thinking of quarterly...
> I was also thinking about the notion of a fund-drive like they do on public radio... rather than suspend posting on the board, you might think about having an automatic tag on message for each post saying "Have you made your contribution yet? The fund drive is ___% of full funding. etc..." If people want to get rid of the message on their post, they must make their contribution. Just a thought.
I do think it probably makes sense to try a voluntary fund drive before making a fee required. And I like the idea of turning off the message for people who've already contributed. I guess I just don't want to be a nag, though...
Bob
Posted by Lorraine on June 22, 2001, at 9:57:23
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2001, at 7:49:56
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Hmm, I suppose it could go that way, too, I hadn't thought of that...I just don't think that people would jump through the hoops to join the group unless they were committed to it in some way. People who just want to harrass would move on to easier pickings. Still the issue of where to draw the line will remain important. I also think this takes the place of the old timers group.
You could even set up a non-paying group at yahoogroups. This would not incur the expenses that you incur with the server etc. One of the things that makes this group special is that it is moderated. You could still moderate that group, Bob.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I 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?
>
> If a benefactor wants to step forward, that would be great, but although it would be a change, and maybe even a sad one, it wouldn't necessarily make it less special, would it?
I would be curious if other members feel that $25 a year would just be too much for their budget to bear.
>
> Bob
Posted by Jane D on June 22, 2001, at 23:55:04
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2001, at 7:49:56
> If a benefactor wants to step forward, that would be great, but although it would be a change, and maybe even a sad one, it wouldn't necessarily make it less special, would it?
>
> Bob
No. Not less special. Just not public any longer. One of the great things, I guess you could call it a bonus, is that you have this great site and in addition to being great it is equally open to everybody.I'm one of those that regrets that the internet is getting increasingly closed. The decline of usenet is too bad. High quality free content is being overshadowed by commercial. Some of these changes are economic but I think some is that people just like to segregate themselves. Professionals have taken themselves off to private lists and sites. Every diagnosis now has a group of its own. Sometimes 2 or 3 so that people who disagree on approaches don't need to be aggravated by each other. People who can pay will group together based on how much they can pay and how much convenience they want and then what is left?
Sorry for the rambling complaints. All that any of this really has to do with this site is that this site is one of the ideal examples of what could be.
Jane
Posted by Jane D on June 23, 2001, at 0:06:10
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Lorraine on June 22, 2001, at 9:57:23
> I just don't think that people would jump through the hoops to join the group unless they were committed to it in some way. People who just want to harrass would move on to easier pickings. Still the issue of where to draw the line will remain important. I also think this takes the place of the old timers group.
Lorraine,
All this is true. But I like that there are different levels of commitment represented here. I'm not sure that too high a level of commitment is always a good thing. Many of the people who drop in, post and leave are not disruptive.
> I would be curious if other members feel that $25 a year would just be too much for their budget to bear.It has been for me in the past and may be again. But there have been many more times when I was convinced I couldn't afford to spend that kind of money for anything for myself even though it wasn't true. I obsess on money when I'm not doing well and tend to deny myself any thing I see as self indulgence. This ends up being a real barrier even though I'm imagining it.
Jane
Posted by Lorraine on June 23, 2001, at 11:51:12
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Jane D on June 20, 2001, at 16:50:10
> > > > > > 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 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.
Jane: We are clearly coming from different points of view here and maybe it has to do with what is going on in our personal lives (or going on in mine, but not going on in yours?) I feel as though I have lost so much from this disease--including closeness with family members who believe that this is all about who can "sad-sack" the loudest. I was very close to a sister-in-law who does not believe that depression is a physical illness. As I struggle with this disease, she would like for me to "snap out of it"--after all, her life has been tough, but she's not whining. I can no longer be close to her because this just hurts too much. It's the same story with the rest of my in-laws and my brother as well. They have settled into a frame of reference that this disease does not exist; that people who take meds are making "cosmetic" adjustments to their moods etc. No amount of science info provided changes their view on this. The earth remains flat. Their views reflect, I believe, a cultural bias against recognizing depression as a real illness. It's a bias that is every bit as discounting and demoralizing as racism in my view.Discovery magazine this week published an article about how anti-depressants alter the brain. The thrust of the book was that people who take them are looking for a little "mood boost"; that they should instead exercise. I know that there are a lot of things that impact depression and exercise is one of them, but I also know that no amount of exercise, meditation, positive thinking, talk therapy is going to cure or alleviate my depression significantly. To the extent that they help, I try them. I read the article and am so pissed because I know my sister-in-law will read this article and decide that I am using drugs to "cosmetically" alter my mood.
When I come here, the last thing I need is more drug bashing. It is one thing to talk about alternatives, it is another to imply that drugs are unnecessary for major depression and that people who use them are weak and suffer a weakness of the will. It is one thing to talk about different lifestyles--homosexual, heterosexual--it is another to imply that homosexuals should "adjust", or that they suffer a weakness of the will. This is why I regard some of the anti-drug postings as slurs against the mentally ill. It's not that we shouldn't consider non-drug approaches. (I use a lightbox, take fish oil supplements, meditate, exercise AND take meds). It's that we should not "bash" people that take drugs for a physical illness.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by Shar on June 23, 2001, at 21:50:59
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2001, at 8:01:37
I think another thing going on with drug-bashers is that people often want us to do or stop doing something so THEY can feel more comfortable. So, my family might want me to "snap out of it" because they are gonna feel a lot happier if I do. They don't necessarily revel in the glories of my partial recovery/remission.
> >It's the people who use headings likes "YOU'RE ALL DRUG ADDICTS" .........
Dr. Bob I know you have changed headers in the past, at least once for profanity. Well, you left the original profane title (that had "fuck" in it) and then deleted my reply which carried the title over. I would think it is at least as appropriate to delete postings/headers that are not supportive, and call-names. Both those things are 'not civils'...so that is two not civils; boot em or delete the post. If you aren't sure how to handle a situation, I will be glad to make the decision.
Sometimes living is just hard enough as it is. And a lot of us have to 'turn the other cheek' until we get whiplash. Nobody needs the added insult of name-calling that affects the majority of the board members, and shouts even. It is very wearying.
.......the fee. That will stop the drop-in flamers, but that doesn't seem to be the kind this board draws. Plus, this board being free I think offers everybody a chance to participate, which is a good thing...so much these days people have to do without because of money....like therapy or even meds if they fall between program parameters. There is always the more equitable approach of letting the 'rich' and generous pay more and letting one's conscience be one's guide. There is already a place to send donations; maybe this could be mentioned once a month or something (like a PB ad).
And, someone said something about paid membership taking the place of an old-timer's group? I don't necessarily disagree but I don't follow the logic there.
That's probably at least 15 cents worth.
Shar
Posted by medlib on June 24, 2001, at 18:05:58
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments, posted by Shar on June 23, 2001, at 21:50:59
Hi Shar, and other Old Timers---
I mentioned a possible membership-based Old Timers' board in a TelePB post--that part of which should have been posted here. I could have argued that old timers might (not should) be more willing to pay because they have had the use/benefits of this forum for longer. But, Shar, you're right--there was little logic behind my suggestion; it was motivated by pure nostalgia for a forum that felt safer because it was familiar--and civil. For example, I always open your posts because I know from experience that I'm likely to find them thought-provoking, and because I know you'll express disagreement without character assassination. For me, that willingness to make appropriate distinctions between posters and their posts is the essence of civility. I hoped that others might feel as I do and be willing to express their gratitude monetarily for an opportunity to make contact with those who had helped/interested them in the past.
I'm a low energy person in the best of times, and the worst of times leave me unable to do much more than hang on by my fingertips; sometimes I lack the focus to utilize my computer at all, much less to post (guess that that's one reason I can identify with Scott). When I *am* able to function, I'm always in catch-up mode, with little time to spare. When I come to Babble and don't recognize 90% or more of the posters, it feels very much like a "not me" environment; I lack the psychic energy and/or time to get to know an entirely new (and ever-changing) cast of characters, and I open only those few posts whose names I know--guess that's exclusionary by default. (It doesn't help that my ponderous mode of self-expression makes posting very time-consuming for me. Geez, how often I've envied James's succinctness and Noa's warmth and facility with words.)
Lately, I've been heartened by the "return" of a number of familiar posters (Elizabeth, Lorraine, Judy, Craig, Greg, MarkH, Cass, Jane and others whose names are escaping me at the moment; I'd very much like to read more from all. Perhaps others aren't intimidated by unfamiliarity, as I am; goodness knows, I'm certainly an atypical atypical.
I've no wish to hurt feelings, but I think that the tendency to know (and want to know) more about less (or fewer) is an inevitable response to inexorable growth. The subject splits on Babble only mirror the occupational split between therapists and pdocs, and the social/medical split between adults and children. I suspect that GPs and other generalists will continue to survive only in the smallest of settings. Perhaps, "dis-integration" is as relentless as digitization.
Shar, I hope that you are surviving our execrable Texas summer better than I am; my a/c compressor died Friday evening, and I can feel the heat curdling my brain, not to mention my disposition. Probably, I should include a disclaimer with my posts: "Caution; not responsible for opinions expressed from environments hotter than 70 degrees F."
Well wishes from a grumpy generalist---medlib
Posted by Shar on June 25, 2001, at 9:46:51
In reply to To Shar, and other Old Timers, posted by medlib on June 24, 2001, at 18:05:58
Last summer, I came home from work one day and my two dogs were outside laying on the deck. It is unusual for my dogs to go outside at all (they use a doggy door and prefer inside), much less on a normal 98 degree summer day. I found out why when I stepped inside my house. No a/c. I just sat down and started crying! I luckily got it fixed rather easily.
Plus, in Texas, I don't buy new (to me) cars when the transmission goes....I buy when the a/c goes!
> Shar, I hope that you are surviving our execrable Texas summer better than I am; my a/c compressor died Friday evening.....
.........Danger, danger, Will Robinson!! No a/c in Texas? You must quickly find an alternative locale to park yourself. As your name might suggest...a library? If you're in Austin, the main library at UT (PCL) is huge, air conditioned, has tons of private-ish tables and chairs in which to sit, and six (I think) floors. And, I've never been bothered there--save maybe by the odd Frito cruncher...
"Caution; not responsible for opinions expressed from environments hotter than 70 degrees F."
............and I think it's been proven that when the humidity rises to 94% every day, we are actually sauteing our brains over and over--and nobody should listen to what anybody says...
.....BTW, I share your delight at the return of the more familiar names. Yours is one....or maybe it was my heat-induced psychosis that made it seem you were not here much.
Take good care,
Shar>
> Well wishes from a grumpy generalist---medlib
>
>
Posted by Jane D on June 25, 2001, at 22:51:59
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments » Jane D, posted by Lorraine on June 23, 2001, at 11:51:12
>Jane: We are clearly coming from different points of view here and maybe it has to do with what is going on in our personal lives (or going on in mine, but not going on in yours?) I feel as though I have lost so much from this disease--including closeness with family members who believe that this is all about who can "sad-sack" the loudest. I was very close to a sister-in-law who does not believe that depression is a physical illness. As I struggle with this disease, she would like for me to "snap out of it"--after all, her life has been tough, but she's not whining. I can no longer be close to her because this just hurts too much.
Lorraine:
You're right. Our situations are a bit different but I've still identified with many of your postings. I've dealt with this since adolescence. And for most of that time believed that drugs were not for me. Most non supportive friends have long since dropped away or, more likely, I never formed the relationship in the first place. After 20 years it became apparent to everybody (even me) that I wasn't going to "snap out of it". So, to that extent, I can't imagine what it is like to lose the support of people who've been a part of your life for years.
I hope that you can rebuild this relationship. It would be nice if you could get a third party who could tell your sister-in-law something like: "No. This is not the same as when you thought your way out of your despair over changing jobs or whatever. It is something totally different". Unfortunately, if you try to say it yourself it comes out sounding competitive. It also is easier when the meds are working. I think friends and family are more willing to accept that you have made the right choice when they see that you are happy. Of course you don't need their support nearly as much then but it's their urge to help that brings out some of the worst comments.
>It's the same story with the rest of my in-laws and my brother as well. They have settled into a frame of reference that this disease does not exist; that people who take meds are making "cosmetic" adjustments to their moods
I don't think they can help believing that. I think that, for example, if your sister in law had to admit that it was not just her strength of will that kept her going without whining that she wouldn't be able to cope with whatever difficulties she does have. I think its one of those fictions people have to believe about themselves. We just get caught in the fallout.
>Discovery magazine this week published an article about how anti-depressants alter the brain. The thrust of the book was that people who take them are looking for a little "mood boost"; that they should instead exercise. I know that there are a lot of things that impact depression and exercise is one of them, but I also know that no amount of exercise, meditation, positive thinking, talk therapy is going to cure or alleviate my depression significantly. To the extent that they help, I try them. I read the article and am so pissed because I know my sister-in-law will read this article and decide that I am using drugs to "cosmetically" alter my mood.I got a phone call from a relative after the last publicity about exercise as miracle cure. It was well meant but did show he didn't really understand my situation.
>
> When I come here, the last thing I need is more drug bashing. It is one thing to talk about alternatives, it is another to imply that drugs are unnecessary for major depression and that people who use them are weak and suffer a weakness of the will. It is one thing to talk about different lifestyles--homosexual, heterosexual--it is another to imply that homosexuals should "adjust", or that they suffer a weakness of the will. This is why I regard some of the anti-drug postings as slurs against the mentally ill. It's not that we shouldn't consider non-drug approaches. (I use a lightbox, take fish oil supplements, meditate, exercise AND take meds). It's that we should not "bash" people that take drugs for a physical illness.
>
> Just my 2 cents.I took a hiatus from using drugs even though I was warned not to. It was a mistake. I still don't know why I did it but I think that some of these antidrug sentiments were lurking in the back of my mind. (As an aside, I would never have taken the position that you or anyone else shouldn't use drugs - my blind spot was entirely for myself.) But I think if I'd seen someone else laying out these arguments against drugs I would have seen how irrational they were. Then again I might not have. But I still have sympathy for some of these posters - because I think some of them are like I was.
Less than 2 cents and less of a response then you deserved.
Jane
Posted by Lorraine on June 26, 2001, at 9:57:44
In reply to Re: anti-drug comments » Lorraine, posted by Jane D on June 25, 2001, at 22:51:59
> >Jane: We are clearly coming from different points of view here and maybe it has to do with what is going on in our personal lives (or going on in mine, but not going on in yours?) I feel as though I have lost so much from this disease--including closeness with family members who believe that this is all about who can "sad-sack" the loudest. I was very close to a sister-in-law who does not believe that depression is a physical illness. As I struggle with this disease, she would like for me to "snap out of it"--after all, her life has been tough, but she's not whining. I can no longer be close to her because this just hurts too much.
>
> Lorraine:
>
> You're right. Our situations are a bit different but I've still identified with many of your postings. I've dealt with this since adolescence. And for most of that time believed that drugs were not for me. Most non supportive friends have long since dropped away or, more likely, I never formed the relationship in the first place. After 20 years it became apparent to everybody (even me) that I wasn't going to "snap out of it". So, to that extent, I can't imagine what it is like to lose the support of people who've been a part of your life for years.
>
> I hope that you can rebuild this relationship. It would be nice if you could get a third party who could tell your sister-in-law something like: "No. This is not the same as when you thought your way out of your despair over changing jobs or whatever. It is something totally different". Unfortunately, if you try to say it yourself it comes out sounding competitive. It also is easier when the meds are working. I think friends and family are more willing to accept that you have made the right choice when they see that you are happy. Of course you don't need their support nearly as much then but it's their urge to help that brings out some of the worst comments.
>
> >It's the same story with the rest of my in-laws and my brother as well. They have settled into a frame of reference that this disease does not exist; that people who take meds are making "cosmetic" adjustments to their moods
>
> I don't think they can help believing that. I think that, for example, if your sister in law had to admit that it was not just her strength of will that kept her going without whining that she wouldn't be able to cope with whatever difficulties she does have. I think its one of those fictions people have to believe about themselves. We just get caught in the fallout.
>
> >Discovery magazine this week published an article about how anti-depressants alter the brain. The thrust of the book was that people who take them are looking for a little "mood boost"; that they should instead exercise. I know that there are a lot of things that impact depression and exercise is one of them, but I also know that no amount of exercise, meditation, positive thinking, talk therapy is going to cure or alleviate my depression significantly. To the extent that they help, I try them. I read the article and am so pissed because I know my sister-in-law will read this article and decide that I am using drugs to "cosmetically" alter my mood.
>
> I got a phone call from a relative after the last publicity about exercise as miracle cure. It was well meant but did show he didn't really understand my situation.
>
> >
> > When I come here, the last thing I need is more drug bashing. It is one thing to talk about alternatives, it is another to imply that drugs are unnecessary for major depression and that people who use them are weak and suffer a weakness of the will. It is one thing to talk about different lifestyles--homosexual, heterosexual--it is another to imply that homosexuals should "adjust", or that they suffer a weakness of the will. This is why I regard some of the anti-drug postings as slurs against the mentally ill. It's not that we shouldn't consider non-drug approaches. (I use a lightbox, take fish oil supplements, meditate, exercise AND take meds). It's that we should not "bash" people that take drugs for a physical illness.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
>
> I took a hiatus from using drugs even though I was warned not to. It was a mistake. I still don't know why I did it but I think that some of these antidrug sentiments were lurking in the back of my mind. (As an aside, I would never have taken the position that you or anyone else shouldn't use drugs - my blind spot was entirely for myself.) But I think if I'd seen someone else laying out these arguments against drugs I would have seen how irrational they were. Then again I might not have. But I still have sympathy for some of these posters - because I think some of them are like I was.
>
> Less than 2 cents and less of a response then you deserved.
>
> Jane
This is the end of the 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.