![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BrittPark on September 18, 2002, at 21:04:42
Hi Dr. Bob,
You just (in the last few hours) redirected two threads because (I think) you classified them as being about science. To me they seemed to be more about the science of psychopharmacology and therefore reasonable threads for psycho-babble. I've been periodically depressed for 20 years and find comfort and support in discussions of what's coming down the pipe and how research into mental health is being carried out.
Perhaps you need to add a new forum: psycho-science. I'd be an avid reader and contributor.
Thanks for running such a great resource,
Britt
Posted by Phil on September 18, 2002, at 22:47:49
In reply to Pharmaceutical Science Dr. Bob, posted by BrittPark on September 18, 2002, at 21:04:42
Could you instead respond and post things on psycho babble that would tie in with other post on meds and go deeper with the subject. Then, whenever you want, just go off on a topic that interest you. I think a lot of people would like to have that integrated w/ babble.
I guess if it involved all areas of science, it would need it's own board.
Whatever the case, I enjoy hearing smart people talk about science. I wasn't amused with it in school but I think it's fascinating now. Good idea.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 8:21:42
In reply to Pharmaceutical Science Dr. Bob, posted by BrittPark on September 18, 2002, at 21:04:42
> You just (in the last few hours) redirected two threads because (I think) you classified them as being about science. To me they seemed to be more about the science of psychopharmacology and therefore reasonable threads for psycho-babble. I've been periodically depressed for 20 years and find comfort and support in discussions of what's coming down the pipe and how research into mental health is being carried out.
I agree, the science of psychopharmacology, what's coming down the pipe, and how research into mental health (specifically, medication) is being carried out all sound reasonable and should be fine. But I thought it was getting into issues like whether science was neutral, which was much more general.
Bob
Posted by Disillusioned on September 19, 2002, at 14:21:27
In reply to Re: Pharmaceutical Science, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 8:21:42
"But I thought it was getting into issues like whether science was neutral, which was much more general." This reads better as "But I assumed.."
Please do not assume. Cognitve therapy teaches us the wrongs of assuming. Instead, play your card when you are sure, or you may antagonize the same people you are trying to rally.
Also, I assume that you are aware that some of the posts are made by people when they are not in their right mind. If you delete a post made by a person in such a state, you may encourage more inapropriate posts by inciting people's anger. Is it not better to delete after people (plural) state they are offended by such a post, rather than assume that people will be offended?
You have engaged yourself in a very difficult task: Come to a scientific conclusion from an uncontrolled environment. Administering control of this environment may undo the very thing you set out to do. I commend you on your ambitious project, but am already skeptical due to the number of posts that you make to influence behavior of people on these boards. It is quite a complex task indeed. However, God's speed to you. May your research prove to be vital to a healthier and happier public, and it is my hope that your dicoveries make the tarriffs on access to psychologists' help far less expensive.
Best wishes.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:15:02
In reply to Re: Pharmaceutical Science Dr Bob, posted by Disillusioned on September 19, 2002, at 14:21:27
> "But I thought it was getting into issues like whether science was neutral, which was much more general." This reads better as "But I assumed.."
Thinking and assuming aren't the same thing.
> Is it not better to delete after people (plural) state they are offended by such a post, rather than assume that people will be offended?
IMO, it's better to *prevent* forest fires.
Bob
Posted by Disillusioned on September 19, 2002, at 23:03:20
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:15:02
Ha ha ha ha. You make me laugh. I needed that.
"Thinking and assuming aren't the same thing."
By the complete sentence that you used, it is an assumption!
"IMO, it's better to *prevent* forest fires."
Regardless of your opinion, the first amendment gaurantees freedom of speech and the right to petition government. Your governing of these boards is upsetting people. I advise you to wait until you've had a complaint. You may find yourself in a court of law if you do not. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Posted by oracle on September 20, 2002, at 10:11:47
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting, posted by Disillusioned on September 19, 2002, at 23:03:20
You may find yourself in a court of law if you do not. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Your rights are not absolute. Your understanding of your rights in incorrect.
Posted by Disillusioned on September 20, 2002, at 13:53:14
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting, posted by oracle on September 20, 2002, at 10:11:47
No sir. Your understanding of your rights is incorrect. In fact you diminish your rights by posting this nonsense.
Posted by oracle on September 20, 2002, at 15:35:40
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting » oracle, posted by Disillusioned on September 20, 2002, at 13:53:14
> No sir. Your understanding of your rights is incorrect. In fact you diminish your rights by posting this nonsense.
Last time I checked it was still not protected to yell "fire" unless the building was on fire.
If this please was owned my a public org, you have broad rights to speech. But this place is not owned in that fasion.
Posted by oracle on September 20, 2002, at 15:50:32
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting » oracle, posted by Disillusioned on September 20, 2002, at 13:53:14
> No sir. Your understanding of your rights is incorrect. In fact you diminish your rights by posting this nonsense.
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/qa.htm
Q: But wait -- private employers are allowed to restrict their employees' speech, so how can private employee speech be "free"?
A: The First Amendment protects people's speech -- on the street, in homes, in private workplaces -- from government restriction. Whether or not the speech can be restricted by private people, it can't be restricted by the government. For an explanation of why harassment law is state action, click here. For an explanation of why speech in private workplaces is constitutionally protected, click here.Thr right to free speech is "from government restriction". This is extended to public schools,
gov orgs, orgs that receive gov money. It is not an absolute right. As long as your view can be
heard somewhere, it can be limited in some places.It seems a bit odd to be arguing "rights" with someone who broke the rules of this site, came back under another name and had issues in that their posts were removed.
Posted by GabbiX2 on September 20, 2002, at 19:54:15
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting » oracle, posted by Disillusioned on September 20, 2002, at 13:53:14
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 20, 2002, at 23:51:46
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting » oracle, posted by Disillusioned on September 20, 2002, at 13:53:14
> you diminish your rights by posting this nonsense.
Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. Thanks,
Bob
PS: To submit anonymous feedback on this administrative decision:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-open/surveys?id=980209To discuss this feedback experiment:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7456.html
Posted by oracle on September 21, 2002, at 10:46:07
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting, posted by oracle on September 20, 2002, at 15:50:32
Re-reading this it seems i ment to direct this to "BrittPark":
It seems a bit odd to be arguing "rights" with someone who broke the rules of this site, came back under another name and had issues in that their posts were removed.
Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:21:51
In reply to Re: Pharmaceutical Science Dr Bob, posted by Disillusioned on September 19, 2002, at 14:21:27
> Please do not assume. Cognitve therapy teaches us the wrongs of assuming. Instead, play your card when you are sure, or you may antagonize the same people you are trying to rally.
>
> Also, I assume that you are aware that some of the posts are made by people when they are not in their right mind. If you delete a post made by a person in such a state, you may encourage more inapropriate posts by inciting people's anger. Is it not better to delete after people (plural) state they are offended by such a post, rather than assume that people will be offended?
>
> You have engaged yourself in a very difficult task: Come to a scientific conclusion from an uncontrolled environment. Administering control of this environment may undo the very thing you set out to do. I commend you on your ambitious project, but am already skeptical due to the number of posts that you make to influence behavior of people on these boards. It is quite a complex task indeed. However, God's speed to you. May your research prove to be vital to a healthier and happier public, and it is my hope that your dicoveries make the tarriffs on access to psychologists' help far less expensive.
>
>You have made perfect sense. Numbers of us have spent six months, a year, more, rephrasing these very same concerns - and finally departed a once-promising forum.
Be prepared.
Zo
Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:48:30
In reply to Re: assuming and deleting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2002, at 19:15:02
> IMO, it's better to *prevent* forest fires.
>
> BobWhich of course has *nothing* to do with the question posed.
Those of us who have watched this canned response repeatedly posted . still don't know how much of it is game, how much a result of carelessness and hurry, or whether we may simply be seeing an example emotional ignorance at work.
This post is in no way intended to suggest anything along the lines of "Zo thinks Bob is stupid," nor may any such implication be inferred.
Rather, it is clear, to my way of seeing, that there are many kinds of intelligence. Moderating is not an area where Bob shines - why should it necesssarily be?
More interestingly, one wonders why the feedback of so many, and over such length of time, is not made use of. One has to assume an *inability* to make use of. Which is in itself diagnostic. I am sorry, Bob, if any of this has hurt your feelings. It is not surprise that some posts may have reached a hurtful, angry pitch - again, vital human feedback that doesn't register. Vital even on the most practical level, of running a site that thrives.
Zo
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.