![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 61. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:58:41
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet, posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 19:53:05
This whole Munchhausen thing is really bugging me. I recall posing a while back this idea that there were fake characters, alter-egos, that Bob created to fill his PB site created to test the reaction of others, spurn idealization of the moderator, whatever. I got what felt like a terse denial which I accepted. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the posters aren't actually Munchers - researchers like Feldman who dabble in PB while doing their research, or Bob's graduate students, who like Matt, need a little material for a paper, or therapists who hear about PB from patients and can't help themselves by investigating the forum that their patients rave about in session. Bob, how about a survey of participants to see how many of us have ever received psychiatric treatment, how many are voyeurs, and how many are clinicians, students, researchers, etc? Maybe you already have an estimate of how many participants are not recovering psychiatric patients. I for one would like to know.
-Toph
Posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet » Mark H., posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:58:41
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:56:08
In reply to Re: Munchausen's Syndrome, posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 16:27:09
> I am more puzzled by Matt's assertion of Munchausen's, as if people fake mental illness to participate here. As far as I know, you don't have to have a psychiatric diagnosis to babble, just an interest.
>No, but careful study might find evidence that a dx has some currency toward community standing in this forum. This post ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403442.html ) might be cited as an example. Our analysis, which doesn't require an IRB's review because it is protected as free speech, has found some evidence that people who present complaining of symptoms are more readily accepted at forums such as this than those who present primarily as one offering support or education, or who suggest they recovered from a previously dx'ed disorder.
In response to the original query, investigation of an existing opus does not meet the same requirements for institutional review as investigations in which a researcher employed by a federally funded institution creates and controls a situation for the purpose of conducting research into human behavior. State laws, such as those of Illinois, introduce additional controls, but the first amendment right to free speech always weighs against efforts to control critical review of published works or spoken words. Literature reviews and other non-invasive surveys of public behavior do not always require approval of an IRB. If a research project is affiliated with an institution that receives federal funds, it is more likely an instrument such as a poll would be required to have IRB approval. If CNN, however, chooses to do a 30-minute special in which PBabble messages are reviewed under fair use principles of copyright law, there would be little Robert Hsiung could do to protect his clients. The same goes for any publication that might choose to prepare an in-depth report about this forum.
They can talk, write or broadcast images about the forum all they like, as long as their comments are not libelous. They can reproduce some content of this site in keeping with fair use principles, which take into account the educational nature of the intended use, the extent to which the work is excerpted and how excerpting might effect marketability of the copyrighted opus. In that regard, CNN can use material from this site more freely than can Robert Hsiung, because Hsiung is a researcher whereas CNN would be reporting about interaction among people who posted here knowing that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy beyond the anonymity afforded by technical measures. If you were sitting in your living room, or in an AA meeting, or if you posted to a closed e-mail list, it would be a different matter, because then you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which a publisher would violate by revealing your private correspondence (unless of course you are a public figure, whose private correspondence might be a matter of public interest).
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 0:06:23
In reply to Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. (nm), posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 7:09:44
In reply to Re: Munchausen's Syndrome, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:56:08
..and that means my posts, too. Thank you.
Posted by Glydin on October 21, 2004, at 8:29:41
In reply to Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. (nm), posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
Yes, and if we assume that postings are true - which is questionable as baiting and deception are possibilities - there are some private details about the orginator of this request, if one cares to search, so anything COULD be used to any purpose about anyone who has posted here - good, bad, or indifferent.
I think everyone should think deeply about that risk. Some may be comfortable with that prospect, others may not.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
In reply to Leave me out of your discussion » Mary_Bowers, posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 7:09:44
As I appreciate the body of rules Robert Hsiung has attempted to construct, a person can ask that others don't expressly direct messages to them. I have found no record of a provision that others don't write about them, but it might be reasonable to conclude the "not to me" request extends to "not about me."
If there is a provision that allows others to ask that somebody not write about them, then it would seem reasonable to expect the provision cuts both ways. If a person asks me not to talk about them in posts here, it seems part of the agreement would be that the requesting party cease any discussion, directly or implicitly, about the other. If it doesn't it would be easy enough for a person to counter-request that the one asking to be excluded from discussion also refrain from discussing the person they don't want discussing them. However, it would be impractical in the context of this or any open discussion site to presume a person has an exclusive right to a topic, which is to say, if a person raises a subject, any "member" in good standing may continue to discuss that subject. As far as I know, nobody may say "I talked about that first, so now you can't talk about it."
Beyond the context of this site, no person enjoys any reasonable expecation of privacy for what they have posted here except general copyright provisions and the technical measures intended to afford anonymity. If I or anyone else chose to work within fair use principles to review on another web site, in a published book or in a broadcast program particular posts, posters or personal problems disclosed by particular posters, there is nothing a person can do to prevent it. Hsiung might decide to consider additional arbitrary rules, such as a requirement that members swear an AA-style promise of secrecy concerning things they have read on Psychobabble, but that would probably be impractical; members would enjoy less opportunity to discuss Psychobabble in real life than would any other person, if a member wanted to retain their good standing. Such a rule could prohibit a husband, for example from discussing with his wife a scenario he read on psychobabble. The likely result would be that members who discuss details of the site in other venues would no longer advise other members here of their activities elsewhere in relation to the site. Within the context of this site, such a rule would give members an unusual degree of control over the behavior of members who participate in other venues. It would potentially limit discussion of other psych sites - for example if I mention to another site that I prefer that site to psychobabble (or visa-versa), I would have offended the theoretical rule about discussing psychobabble off-site.
Robert Hsiung has provided his clients at Psychobabble publishing tools, and has composed some language advising them of the non-private nature of the venue in which he is inviting publication, but may not have effectively impressed on participants the extent to which they sacrifice their privacy by publishing to a public readership.
For my part, unless I have expressly assured another person a degree of secrecy, I retain full rights to discuss freely any conversation of which I have been a part, or which was conducted in my presence with no reasonable expectation of privacy. These are the standards adopted during two centuries of jurisprudence in a society that is represented as the model of civil society around the world. However, although I enjoy a civil right to do so, I don't believe I have stated an intent to publish information about particular posters elsewhere.
I have suggested several venues that might be accessible to me, but I have reached no conclusions as to how I will eventually discuss technical analysis of this site. I can suggest that our primary goal at this point is to develop protocols - ways of measuring behavior at this site - that can be applied to any portion of the opus and discover the same result, within a reasonable margin of error. I am advising my peers at psychobabble the only thing Robert Hsiung could do to stop somebody who chose to review the site and its contents under fair use principles of copyright law would be to limit their participation in this site, which probably wouldn't stop CNN or Fox or anyone else who was intent on reporting their findings about this site.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:46:18
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
Exclusion, no exclusion - it doesn't matter.
She asked you to leave her out of any discussion and decent manners, not to mention humanity, should keep you from doing so.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:48:24
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
Poor choice of words. Change "humanity" to "common decency" and you'll get my point.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 11:54:28
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 11:56:03
In reply to Er, I take it that's a no (nm) » Mary_Bowers, posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 11:54:28
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:59:23
In reply to Er, I take it that's a no (nm) » Mary_Bowers, posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 11:54:28
Please let me......
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 11:59:32
In reply to Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. (nm), posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
<<Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.>>
What message are you trying to convey here Matt?
Can I assume you meant to say "Doesn't mean they ARE out to get you"?
If not, what your message seems to be saying to me is that you think we (psycho-babble posters) should be paranoid, or you would like us to be paranoid. If that is the case I would request that Dr. Bob give you a "please be civil" warning due to the fact that I feel put down and somewhat disturbed by this statement.
I find it interesting that you have yet to let us know what relationship you think there is between Munchausen's Syndrom and the occult. I am also intrigued that you have not disclosed what has brought you to the conclusion that you feel there are "several" posters at this website who have Munchausen's Syndrom. Woudn't that be a presumptuous diagnosis, seeing that you are in college, and do not appear to be a doctor of any sort (as of yet, perhaps)?
It is also interesting that you have not responded to Dr. Bob's request either. Seems that by not answering, you are conveying that you have already made your choice.
Matt, can I assume by your name that you were born in 1984? If so, that would make you aproximately 20 years old. Am I correct? If so, I wonder what your age might say about your personality, thoughts, and feelings. Could it be that being young and somewhat inexperienced at life might be making you less understanding of others?
Please feel free to respond here. There should be no concern on your part that what you say may be used for a project in college classroom.
Matt, in case you were wondering......that was sarcasm dripping from my fingers as I typed that last paragraph. I am sure that many posters here have better things to do with their time than take what someone has posted and use it for their own benefit or to hurt others.
Enjoy your day,
AdaGrace
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 12:01:31
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet » Mark H., posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:58:41
I'm not a recovering psych patient.
I can't see one whit that I've experienced any recovery.
Posted by mattw84 on October 21, 2004, at 13:17:32
In reply to Re: Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. » mattw84, posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 11:59:32
Sincerely so, I apologize for the turmoil this topic has created.
Munchausen's has nothing to do with the occult, my intent was only for its use as an example of "critical thinking" and evaluation of statements. Most people are researching the same old stuff for their term papers; like water dowsing, roswell, etc... The purpose of the paper is to research and evaluate the validity of any topic and it's supporting details. Not wanting to follow the herd and write a paper about ghosts or black holes, I sought out to find a poster to use as an example of inconsistency and by which could use to illustrate evaluation and analysis of what had been presented. Apparently everyone here fears that they were that person, hence my sarcastic remark. Apologies.
I hope this answers some, if any of your questions for me. I found this site for the same reason everyone else did, to seek a common peer community to share one-anothers knowledge of mental illness. I am not here to examine posts made, and would much rather just let this topic die. I have plenty of time, as well as other ideas as to topics for my philosophy paper.
Again, I apologize to all whom I have offended or caused any undue worry. My sarcastic remark was blatently insensitive, and as AdaGrace pointed out -- I am only 20 and somewhat inexperienced at life might be less understanding of others. I have made many mistakes previously, and certainly will make many more in the future; Sorry it had to be at the expense of my fellow babblers.
Matt
Posted by karen_kay on October 21, 2004, at 13:31:56
In reply to Q's about restrictions for Dr. Hsiung, posted by mattw84 on October 18, 2004, at 22:59:08
hey there cowboy! i understand how hard it is to find interesting subjects (topics, not people) for class requirements. i'm fairly certain i do not have this condition that you mentioned, however if there is anything that i can do to help you with your assignment, please don't hesitate to let me know.
i honestly appreciate the fact that you are very upfront about possibly using this forum for educational purposes and even asking permission to do so. thank you for that.
again, if there is anything i can do to help you, please let me know. i've been in situations before with school projects where i've needed some help and i sincerely appreciate the people who've helped me. i'd love to return the favor. i almost think it's a shame more people here aren't willing to help.
if you like, you can research my old posts and feel free to print, use, abuse or simply laugh at me, my posts or my condition (i'm not being sarcastic, sometimes i'm so crazy i just have to laugh.). but!! be aware, there was a time i was posting everyday, numerous times each day.
so, if there's anything i can do to help you out, let me know, ok?
and my email is karen_kay12 at yahoo.com feel free to get ahold of me.
good luck on your project and i really hope i can help you.
take care dear,
kk
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 13:51:34
In reply to Re: Got your back » partlycloudy, posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:59:23
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:48
In reply to This is getting out of hand.... apologies all., posted by mattw84 on October 21, 2004, at 13:17:32
> My sarcastic remark was blatently insensitive, and as AdaGrace pointed out -- I am only 20 and somewhat inexperienced at life might be less understanding of others.
But your sarcasm seemed to express a profound understanding of dynamics that can effect groups such as this. Your young age might correlate with developing linquistic skills that dont yet always express your profound understanding in a way that is sensitive to the understanding of others.
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 14:16:34
In reply to This is getting out of hand.... apologies all., posted by mattw84 on October 21, 2004, at 13:17:32
Seriously So.
And I in no way meant to belittle you in regards to your age. What I wouldn't give to be 20 again and know what I know now.
By the way, I didn't think you meant me in regards to the Munchausen thing. Not all negative responses were from people who feared you were talking about them.....hence my comment in regards to the paranoid issue. It just seemed to me that you were being flippant about the whole thing and while it is true that whatever is out there on the internet is pretty much free game to one and all, it was a tad disturbing to think me or anyone would be a subject for scrutiny in a college classroom setting. Even though I am nowhere near Portland, the thought didn't set in my craw very well.
I do wish you good luck on your paper. Sorry the issue causes so much turmoil here. I sorta like this place actually, the refreshments are nice.
Posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 14:24:04
In reply to Re: This is getting out of hand.... apologies all. » mattw84, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:48
You agree that we are "paranoid", and Matt, because of his young age didn't know how to say it sensitively enough? Am I correct in that assumption?
By his own admition, Matt said the remark was sarcastic. By that, I take it he didn't mean it.......
Perhaps you could provide us with some information in regards to the word "sarcastic", it's origin, and any and all links you might be able to find on this website from former posters in regards to this issue.
Let me help you, I made a reference to my own sarcasm in a previous post in this thread. Being relatively new here, I am not yet sure how to link to a previous post, perhaps you can help me out here.
Best Regards,
AdaGrace
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 14:24:06
In reply to Re: This is getting out of hand.... apologies all. » mattw84, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:48
...to convey your ideas with so many words?
My brain is not up to this reading level, and I get all confused trying to understand your posts.What on earth are you doing here??? Please answer me - in plain English, like you'd see in USA Today, you know, 4th grade level stuff. I beg you. Short sentences.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 14:41:17
In reply to Re: This is getting out of hand.... apologies all. » mattw84, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:56:48
Yes, sarcasm can affect those in a group like this. But not near as much as the perceived threat of litigation shutting it down.
We all do need each other, you know.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 14:42:31
In reply to Re: This is getting out of hand.... apologies all., posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 14:41:17
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 14:56:22
In reply to This is getting out of hand.... apologies all., posted by mattw84 on October 21, 2004, at 13:17:32
I still say my dog would have made a good subject.
I also regret some things I said, your intro, "in a few short weeks I have come to recognize numerous individuals who would appear to be suffering from MÜNCHAUSEN'S SYNDROME..." was what put me into wolf mode. I hope your paper works out.
BTW, when I was 20, I'm afraid munchies meant something else entirely to me.
-Toph
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 17:59:24
In reply to Re: In other words Mary » Mary_Bowers, posted by AdaGrace on October 21, 2004, at 14:24:04
> You agree that we are "paranoid", and Matt, because of his young age didn't know how to say it sensitively enough? Am I correct in that assumption?
>
I don't know what basis one has for concluding I presume the group to be paranoid. I addressed a post to Matt that suggested his appreciation of the role of a diagnosed mental disorder in group dynamics here could be more profound than mere sarcasm. Robert Hsiung and a few others discussed the role of group flight or fight syndromes in a context such as this. My thinking more likely follows that line of reasoning.>
> Perhaps you could provide us with some information in regards to the word "sarcastic", it's origin, and any and all links you might be able to find on this website from former posters in regards to this issue.As I appreciate the rules, it would not be permitted to classify others' posts as "Sarcastic" because that could lead them to feel accused or put down. Surely you wouldn't encourage me to pursue a line of discussion after you realize it might unacceptable in this context, as I now suggest a review of "sarcastic" posts might turn out to be. In this thread, Matt described his own behavior as sarcastic, so it seems appropriate to acknowledge his point of view about his own message before offering a suggestion that some elements of his analysis may be more profound than mere sarcasm.
By my count, I've donated three hours of my time today assisting some members of this group. How would it benefit myself or anyone else to do research that appeals primarily to your interest in the term "sarcasm"? Is there a reason you cannot conduct this research yourself?
> Let me help you, I made a reference to my own sarcasm in a previous post in this thread. Being relatively new here, I am not yet sure how to link to a previous post, perhaps you can help me out here.
I have been pasting URLs directly into posts and they appear as hyperlinks thanks to the PERL software that facilitates operation of this site. For example, we can link your post here simply by copying (Control + C on a PC keyboard) the URL from the address line at the top of a browser window and pasting (Control + V on a PC) it into the message we are composing:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405519.htmlThere is a way to hide the URL behind words, causing the words to appear as a link, but I have not spent time sorting that, and directly posted URL's might easier to deal with if they get "broken".
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.