![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 20:49:08
In reply to Re: The thing about krushes is..., posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 20:42:56
If you want to keep teasing me, you're going to have to move it to social.
Posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 20:52:22
In reply to Re: The thing about krushes is..., posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 20:42:56
discussed in your own private emailing worlds as this is soley an Administration board..
Alternatively discussion can be held at:
We love/hate Doc O Bob . com (million hits a month-gasp)
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 20:52:37
In reply to Lou's response to the post by dreamerz » dreamerz, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 20:46:51
Lou, now I feel bad about something that was meant to be playful and good spirited. You know I wasn't referring to anything that was cruel.
Could we just drop this thread, because I feel really sad about it now.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 21:06:25
In reply to Re: Dinah's request to Lou, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 20:52:37
Dinah,
You have requested for me to[... drop this thread...].
Now I would be glad to for you wrote that you [...feel sad..] about it.
But a post here can have two edges and cut both ways. So I hope that you could understand my concern about your post.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 21:19:51
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's request to Lou » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 21:06:25
I appreciate your consideration.
Posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 21:31:39
In reply to Re: Thank you. » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 21:19:51
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 22:35:17
In reply to Re: Dinah's request to Lou, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 20:52:37
Dinah,
You wrote,[...you know that I wasn't referring to anything that was {cruel}...].
Yes, I agree with you that {you} were not referring to anything that was cruel. Your post was about what posts of [Dr. Bob's] that you thought were funny. {You} never wrote anything that was cruel, and I never wrote that what you wrote was {being cruel} and if you are [feeling bad] about that, then you should be aware that I do not think that {your} post was cruel, only that there could be a post by Dr. Bob that you thought to be a funny response, that others could have thought to be a cruel response. So if you are worrying about whether you wrote something that was cruel, you do not have to be concerned about me thinking that whatever you wrote was cruel.
Best wishes,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 22:41:08
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's request to Lou-2C » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 22:35:17
Posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 23:37:40
In reply to Re: Thank you again. I appreciate that. (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 27, 2003, at 22:41:08
Posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 7:32:34
In reply to Re: long thread from few kind words : ) (nm) » Dinah, posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 23:37:40
Posted by wendy b. on February 28, 2003, at 11:54:17
In reply to Lou's reply to OddipusRex-1B » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2003, at 20:33:53
> OR,
> You wote,[...one of my favorites...]
> Now I looked that up in your link and Dr. Bob gave an asnswer to a question,[...did you ever hear of...?].
> Dr. Bob's answer was,[yes]. Could you identify the element(s) of humor that you observe in that one-word reply? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of other's elements of humor and try to see it myself .
> Lou
Lou, sometimes, I have to admit, your sensibilities are right on target, at least for me.A one-word answer in the middle of a very disputatious thread seems very dismissive to me, and it did when I read it back then, too.
I don't consider myself a person lacking in the Sense of Humor Department; I've even been known to joke around a little here... (!) And I know I have witnessed Lou's sense of humor many times, too.
But in the middle of a lot of hurt feelings on that thread, Bob's ironic reply may have ended up hurting another person's feelings on top of it all. It did seem kinda mean-spirited.
Dinah, I'm sorry you're sad you started the thread. You get to have an opinion, and I agree with you that Bob can be quite funny. But for Lou to express himself, to have an opinion too, and have that make you sad... I don't know, but it seems to be an over-reaction (?), and somewhat unfair. Or is it that the thread is now belaboring a fine point of discussion that you didn't want it to?
Forgive me if I overstep my boundaries with these questions, here. It's just that threads have lives of their own, and we all don't have to agree, as long as our disagreements are civil (within the definitions Bob has established). I see nothing uncivil in what Lou posted, just a sensitivity to others' feelings. And you know that's always ok - right?
Different points of view don't have to result in painful experiences, do they?
Yours sincerely,
Wendy
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 12:19:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, etc., posted by wendy b. on February 28, 2003, at 11:54:17
Wendy,
Thank you for your tremendous insight into this discussion.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:20:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, etc., posted by wendy b. on February 28, 2003, at 11:54:17
> Dinah, I'm sorry you're sad you started the thread. You get to have an opinion, and I agree with you that Bob can be quite funny. But for Lou to express himself, to have an opinion too, and have that make you sad... I don't know, but it seems to be an over-reaction (?), and somewhat unfair. Or is it that the thread is now belaboring a fine point of discussion that you didn't want it to?
>I have admitted that I am overreacting. I'm not feeling at all well right now, quite unstable really, and I really think I shouldn't be posting. It's hard to stop sometimes, tho. But was it necessary to point it out again, after I've already admitted it? And I don't think it was unfair. I explained to Lou the problem, and I think he understood, and I thanked him for understanding. I appreciate his kindness in helping me out of a mess I got into.
I know I'm unstable when under stress. And I've tried to keep my posts uncontroversial because I'm under stress right now. And I misjudged. I know your intent wasn't to shame me, and I know I'm overreacting to feel shame at what you said.
And now I hope I'll have the self discipline enough to quit reading the board until I feel better.
Posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:31:43
In reply to Re: Well, here I go making an idiot of myself. » wendy b., posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:20:56
before reading my last post.
Posted by dreamerz on February 28, 2003, at 12:36:15
In reply to Re: Wendy, please read apology on thread below, posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:31:43
..shouldn't of taken Dinahs post and tried to be funny..
Posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:38:09
In reply to Re: It's MY fault OK !, posted by dreamerz on February 28, 2003, at 12:36:15
Posted by beardedlady on February 28, 2003, at 17:26:23
In reply to Re: Well, here I go making an idiot of myself. » wendy b., posted by Dinah on February 28, 2003, at 12:20:56
You might not have thought about this, but it is O.K. to make a positive comment or compliment someone without having to explain yourself!
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 18:53:47
In reply to Another thought » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on February 28, 2003, at 17:26:23
BL,
You wrote,[...it is OK to make a positive comment or complimant someone without having to explain yourself...].
What is a compliment ,or not, was a topic of disagreement on this forum and a discussion ensued so as not to deternmine one way or the other by any one poster here if the posts in question, if they were identified, could be determined to be funny or complimentary. There have been different points of view here about this and there have been objections posted here concerning the way Dr. Bob has made remarks to some people here and how he has commented to those that he was expelling. This is not a one-person issue here.
In my request to Dinah, the request was a request for {identification} of the particular posts of Dr. Bob's that she thought was of funny. I did not ask her to explain herself as to why she thought those posts by Dr. were funny to her, only to identify them so that the posters here could separate them and ,possibly rule out ones that could be construed to be {not} funny, but ,possibly cruel to the poster that he remarked to and get this out in the open, where it belongs,for ony one's post is open to all posters here for examination and discussion, so that those who feel that Dr. Bob's remarks to be demeaning, or cruel or [uncivil] to those that he has made those remarks to , and also to those that feel the same type of pain that the poster could feel even though they were not the ones that Dr. Bob remarked to in a manner like some have expressed here, lsuch as Wendy. This admin. board is a venue for posting suggestions for improvement. And posters here can voice their objections {so that suggestions for improvment could be heard}. Without those that voice their concerns, what way could there be to make suggestions for improvent? And how can we voice our concerns about posts unless they are {identified}? Since Dinah rejected an opportunity to identify the posts that she wrote as being funny, other posters brought out one. At that point, Dinah needed{not} to be a participant and could leave the thread or stay..As for me, if whatever is done to one of the posters here that could cause that type of pain, then I feel that same pain and whether the posts are identified or not, the topic was {initiated} by Dinah , and that could be another subject for discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 22:14:42
In reply to Another thought » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on February 28, 2003, at 17:26:23
Friends,
A poster here, was expressing his concern to Dr. Bob as to the way that he had treated another poster and asking if Dr. Bob's policies could [be subject to change].
Dr. Bob remarked to him, [...I ain't that broke...].
Now I see this as interpreting that Dr. Bob was ridiculing Art by saying ,[...I ain't that broke...]. You see, [...subject to change..] could have been to mean that when Art said [...are the policies {ubject to change}..] Dr. Bob used what Art wrote to make Art appear that Art was saying that [...if he gave him some small amount of money,(change), would he change the po;icies. Hence, Dr. Bob, remarks back, [...I aint that broke...].
Now Dr. Bob could say that that is not what he meant. But that is how some people could interpret the remark by Dr. Bob to Art.
I consider Dr. Bob's remark to Art Gibson as being below the standard of behavior by a psychiatrist and I am deeply sorry that Art had to accept that humiliation from Dr. Bob.
You see, the moderator of a forum, a psychiatrist in particular, is requiered to exibit a [higher standard of behavior...he is to be the {exempler}.
Then Art turns to me and uses defamiing language to me. I do not know why Art did that, but , perhaps, he will email me and explain that to me or post it when, and if, he returns.
When Dr. Bob remarked back to Art Gibson, I felt what Art could have felt. I felt the pain of humiliation and ridicule. Art Gibson is a member of this mental-health community and I believe that he deserves an apology from the moderator of this forum.
Lou
Posted by dreamerz on February 28, 2003, at 22:39:34
In reply to Posts by Dr. Bob that Lou thinks are demening , posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 22:14:42
Lou..
I have a vague memory of the post ( I may be wrong ) but Dr Bob replied ..
If it ain't broke..
Meaning if it ain't too broke it doesn't need fixing.
Don't think he mean't it in a monetary way.
Posted by Simcha on February 28, 2003, at 22:41:46
In reply to Posts by Dr. Bob that Lou thinks are demening , posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 22:14:42
Amen Lou!
Posted by dreamerz on February 28, 2003, at 23:15:58
In reply to Posts by Dr. Bob that Lou thinks are demening , posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2003, at 22:14:42
Thinking about it all psychiatrists I've met are demeaning
Posted by jay on March 1, 2003, at 0:41:42
In reply to further discussion of Bob should be .., posted by dreamerz on February 27, 2003, at 20:52:22
> discussed in your own private emailing worlds as this is soley an Administration board..
> Alternatively discussion can be held at:
> We love/hate Doc O Bob . com (million hits a month-gasp)
Well, since Dr. Bob can make public comments about us, we should be able to make our criticisms known publicly on here also. It pertains to the operation of the board, which seems to involve a great deal of banishing people. There is a massive amount of censoring that takes places, some of course justified, but plenty which folks have a gripe about. This is the effective, one and only place for it. (And yes, I do agree the talk of civility should be 'civil'.)Peace, good lunch, and love,
Jay :-)
Posted by LouPilder on March 1, 2003, at 17:06:57
In reply to Re: Posts by Dr. Bob that Lou thinks are demening » Lou Pilder, posted by dreamerz on February 28, 2003, at 22:39:34
Dreamer,
Since the search function was not in order, I went on my memory to recall that post. I believe that the poster wanted to have the policy changed, and said something like [...would the policy be opened to change, or subject to chamge .] Either way, it is possible for one to think that Dr. Bob's remark, [...I ain't that broke, or it ain't that broke...] is a remark that could be seen as ridiculing the poster by taking his words and using the word,[broke], when the poster used the word, [change]. So although the wording may be different, one could interpret it the same way. But still, I think that it would be better for the moderator to not use expressions that could lead a poster to feel put down, particulary when the poster is in a mental-health board and the moderator that made the remark is a psychiatrist. And if we look at your interepretation, there could still be the implication that what the poster wrote had no value, [...it ain't that broke, or I ain't that broke..]. The poster was being responsive to the function of the admin. board to write about inproving the board. His post was concerning opening the policy to [change]. I feel that an answer like Dr. Bob's demeans the poster and puts the poster down because it could be construed that Dr. Bob is demaning the concerns of the poster by writing[..it ain't that broke, or I ain't that broke...], when the poster wrote,[...would the policy be opened to change, or subject to change...]. I feel that it would be better for the community as a whole that the moderator of this mental health board give a sincere request a sincere reply.
Lou
Posted by dreamerz on March 1, 2003, at 18:09:06
In reply to Re: Posts by Dr. Bob that Lou thinks are demening » dreamerz, posted by LouPilder on March 1, 2003, at 17:06:57
Hi Lou..
I don't recall the members post fully and don't know what board.
Anyway , I usually avoid questioning how the board is run because my moods swing and my opinions change and avoid conflict because of the frustration of not being there live with the person.
I think no matter how much the members may dissagree or question Bobs running of the boards..things won't change resulting in acceptance for some and not for others or maybe I'm just cynical at the moment.
I've lost faith in docs and psychiatrists.
Take care
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.