![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
In reply to Lou offers some clarification, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 8:35:48
Lou,
You said "This may or may not be important to some others but its importance to me to the degree that if the statement is determined to be acceptable, then I feel put down and it could be very uncomfortable for me to be a member of this community.."
That is how I feel about your constant requests for clarifications on posts of mine that Dr Bob has not given me a PBC for, and thus obviously finds acceptable.
Do you realise how much you are hurting me by your actions?
I spoke, this morning, with a very respected Psychiatrist / Psychologist here in the UK about this problem, and he suggested I open some dialogue with you. He said that you might not realise how upset I am feeling over this whole thing.
Is there any reason that you target my posts over others? Or is it that you don't read all posts, but my posts happen to be ones you read?
I want to feel happy coming here again, and thought that maybe we could discuss this all and make this a happier place to be for everyone.
I'm not trying to start any arguments, but to have some calm, rational discussions on it.
Thanks,
Nikki
Posted by Sad sara on November 5, 2004, at 9:47:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Sad sara, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 9:00:08
It sprobably me who doesn't understand (I am a new member), but your thread that is called "lou offers some clarification" seems to be linked to the thread called "Dr. Bob... is this a good idea" (http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/412031.html)
It took me a while to understand what you were writing since I expected something that was tied to the subject of that thread, but I have the idea it me that haven't understood the page completely yet :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:05:16
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You wrote about Dr. Hsiung {not} giving you a PBC for posts in question. You wrote then that {thus} he finds it obviously finds it acceptable.
I am of the school of logic that says that just because someone does not give a determination per a request from someone, that the absence of a determination does not necessarrily mean that what was in question {is} acceptable. My request is to Dr. Hsiung for the determinationan and the school of logic that I know of does not mean that something is acceptable to the one being asked for the determination about, because someone else thinks that it is acceptable. I am awaiting a determination from Dr. Hsiung comcerning if his reply to my request for a clarification to his reply to me means that your posts are either acceptable or not here in relation to the guidlines of the forum. It is important that I know what Dr. Hsiung's determination will be in his reply to my reply to his reply to me concerniing this. If he does reply that the post(s) in question are acceptable, then we could go from there. But at this juncture, I have not seen a post from Dr. Hsiung that writes as to if those posts in question are acceptable or not. The argument that they are because he has not given you a PBC I do not accept because in the thread where the poster wrote about the poem on the faith board, I had asked Dr. Hsiung for a determination and he gave me a determination on something that I did not ask for a determination about. When I clarified to him that my request was not answered because that was not what I had asked him, he then reversed his determination and wrote that the post was not acceptable. In my request concerning Dr. Hsiung's own statement that I felt put down christians, he later wrote that I had a valid objection to his post about what Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote and modified the faith board in relation to such. I believe that there could be many reasons why a post is left without a PBC and that the absence of one does not ligitimise it even though some could think that and that is why I am requesting that the posts be determied one way or the other so that people could know if the pposts in question are acceptable or not.. But if Dr. Hsiung does spacifically state that what you wrote is acceptable here, then that would be definitive.
Lou
Posted by Sad sara on November 5, 2004, at 10:21:04
In reply to Lou's reply to NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:05:16
I don't want to intrude in this discussion, but to prevent misunderstanding I would like to say this....
I think the point here was that Nikki apparently has been hurt by one or more of your postings, and just wants you to understand that she feels the same as you when you get hurt from someone elses posting.
Besides, dr. Bob has cleared one of Nikkis posts that you complained on as acceptable: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407792.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:30:10
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
There is another aspect of this in its entierty that is important to me.
I feel that if a post is left unattended to here, that there is the potential for other to consider that Dr. Hsiung endorses the statement. A case in point that you wrote about is that you think that your posts in question are acceptable here because there is no determination made about them per my request to Dr. Hsiung. But I do not consider {spacific} answer to be endorsing the statement. A reply that he did not answer because he sometimes does not answer all posts that are in a collection of posts does not {to me} give me an answer as to if the posts that I had requested for a determination are or are not acceptable here inrelation to the guidlines of the forum which is my request to Dr. Hsiung. I feel that he could still give the determination requested by me even if he did not reply to such because he may not address evry post in a colloction of posts. I belive that the two are separate, one being a request for a determination, the other being that he sometimes doead not address all posts ina thread by the same poster.
Another case in point in the posting by Dr. Hsiung on the faith board the writing of Jean Jacque Rousseau. The post that I requested a determination about could have the potential for others to consider that DR. Hsiung endorsed the statement, that I felt put down christians, by Rousseau. This goes to the policy here about quoting someone, which is another guidline of the forum. His quoting of Jean Rousseau could mean that he would have written it himself, IMO, for there is the potential for one to think that he is endorsing what Rousseau wrote by quoting him. For when one quotes, without a disclaimer, the quote could be attributed to the quoter as well as who the quote came from.
I believe that a similar concept has the potential for others to think that way here in relation to posts that are not determined one way or the other that one requests a determination for.
I did not know if Dr. Hsiung endorsed what I had requested to him about in relation to Jean Rousseau or not. After dialog between me an Dr, Hsiung, a determination was made. I am having dialog with DR. Hsiung in relation to your posts so that a determination could be posted by DR. Hsiung that could answer as to if your posts in question are acceptable here or not. My requests for those determinations, as I see it, have not been determined one way or the other as of yet.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NIkkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Sad sara on November 5, 2004, at 10:21:04
Sad sara,
You wrote about being hurt by postings,
I have not posted to NikkiT2 about the two posts in question. The posts in question are requests for a determination for acceptability in relation to the guidlines of the forum and my requests are to Dr. Hsiung, not to NikkiT2. I am seeking a determination from Dr. Hsiung only, although others could give their opinions.
Dr. Hsiung gave one determination that you cited as to be acceptable and so that seems to me to be something that Niki T2 or others were concerned about to alleviate any concern because the determination was posted as acceptable.
There are two other posts in question that I do not see that Dr. Hsiung has replied to me as being acceptable or not. I feel that if the determination was given to me from Dr. Hsiung, and not others, one way or the other, in a spacific determination, that this whole discussion could quite possibly be ended.
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2004, at 11:56:17
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
> Lou,
>
> You said "This may or may not be important to some others but its importance to me to the degree that if the statement is determined to be acceptable, then I feel put down and it could be very uncomfortable for me to be a member of this community.."
>
> That is how I feel about your constant requests for clarifications on posts of mine that Dr Bob has not given me a PBC for, and thus obviously finds acceptable.
>
> Do you realise how much you are hurting me by your actions?
>
> I spoke, this morning, with a very respected Psychiatrist / Psychologist here in the UK about this problem, and he suggested I open some dialogue with you. He said that you might not realise how upset I am feeling over this whole thing.
>
> Is there any reason that you target my posts over others? Or is it that you don't read all posts, but my posts happen to be ones you read?
>
> I want to feel happy coming here again, and thought that maybe we could discuss this all and make this a happier place to be for everyone.
>
> I'm not trying to start any arguments, but to have some calm, rational discussions on it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nikki
Well, maybe you could try one more time, but I don't see that your effort has been rewarded. Lou seems to me to be logical and mechanistic, and is perhaps focused on his goal to the exclusion of all else, including your personal feelings. I don't think you should take too personally his requests for determination of your previous posts, as I am not sure it was his goal to hurt you. Even if it was, he has already been counseled by Dr. Bob that to request determinations of your subsequent posts will earn him posting blocks.It would be my advice to you to exercise a calm and rational avoidance of the poster whom upsets you right now as I believe your storm has just about lost all of its wind.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:08
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
.
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2004, at 12:05:45
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
Before I get a PBC or possibly blocked, let me take this opportunity to remind you of that which you asked me to remind you of should you do what you told me you shouldn't.
Consider yourself reminded.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 12:19:04
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
Nikki,
You have my sympathy. I understand where you're coming from and feel much the same frustration.
I wish the site management would deal with this situation. My future at this site depends on the outcome.
best wishes,
verne
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2004, at 12:26:46
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » NikkiT2, posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 12:19:04
> Nikki,
>
> You have my sympathy. I understand where you're coming from and feel much the same frustration.
>
> I wish the site management would deal with this situation. My future at this site depends on the outcome.
>
> best wishes,
>
> verne
Hi Verne.I think the doctor's new rule might work. Give it some time.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 12:28:27
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...discuss and make it a happier place...].
I am in accord with you in relation to what you wrote above.
But you included this hurting that you describe about the past posts by me that were to DR. Hsiung for a request to make a determination. I sthat what you want to talk about?
If so, could you try and see how your posts that were made by you directly to me could have the potential to hurt me? If you could, then I feel that we could discuss both and resolve this and have a happier place.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 12:52:34
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 12:28:27
Lou,
If I am to understand you correctly, you don't understand why I feel hurt at posts, which were basically about me, but were directed to Dr Bob.. so, if a post isn't *directed* at me, you don't understand why I could feel hurt.
Using this reckoning, could you explain why a post, on a board you can't post to (PB2000), posted to people there, that was about me and my relationship with my husband, and didn't even mention you, could cause you hurt.
You see I've got confused.. sorry.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You wrote about your hurting from my requests to Dr. Hsiung to make a determination about some of your recent posts, some of which were directed to me by you.
Well, your posts directed by you to me have had a dramatic impact on me. And if we can discuss your hurting to make it a happier place, could we not also discuss my hurting? Your post about,[...don't tell me, I was being antisemitic by being upset with my husband because my husband has a jewish great aunt...]is causing me great distress. I feel that since I have not had a clear reply from Dr. Hsiung about the acceptability or not here for that statement by you, that it could mean that there is the potential for others to think that he endorses the statement to be allowed to be posted as being acceptable. You see, Dr. Hsing's reply to me recently was that he told you to be civil because you wrote to me after I used the feature to you not ot post to me. When I asked him to clarify that, he wrote that he may choose one post in a group of posts. But that does not , to me, tell me if he is saying that your other post in the group of posts are acceptable or not. You have written that it is your impression that since no PBC was given to you that thearfor the post(s)is/are acceptable. I asked a language expert on this and my answer that I received was that it could mean that the post that I requested for a determination is also {not} acceptable. So we have you thinking that no PBC means acceptability and another thinking that it is not acceptable eventhough t DR. Hsing wrote that some other post was not acceptable. That is why I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung now settle this unsettled question.
But could you consider my feelings about how I feel when I read that post of yours that you directed to me?
To me, this post by you about the jewish great aunt , by being a jew that had his relatives exterminated by the Nazis, reminds me of the horrors of Nazism. The jewish great aunt part in particular, because the nazis made it a crime punishable by death to be a jew. And to be a jew could mean that a relative of yours was a jew even if you were not a practicing jew. The nazis considered a jew to be a race, not a relgion and it was the race of jews that they wanted to exterminate. The nazis considered themelves to be the {master race}. One and one-half jewish children were murdered by the nazis because they had genetic jewishness. Their mother's sister or grandmother's sister that was jewish could have been jewish. They were childrem of jewish decent. The nazis considered it a crime to be of jewish decent punishable by death. This statement by you has caused me to see psychiatric help for I do not know how I can deal with it by being allowed to be posted on a mental health forum without me knowing if the moderator, DR. Hsiung, endorses it or not.
Your statement that you would say that you believe that I am evil but you won't, is causing me much distress also. I am not evil. And I also want a happier place where posters do not direct these type of statements, if they are considered by the forun to be not acceptable, to another poster with the thought that they think because the moderator, Dr. Hsiung, since he has not responded dirsctly and spacifacally to my request to determine the acceptability of those posts by you in question mean to you ,at least, since you belivethat they are acceptable because no PCB was given to them, that they are acceptable here in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:48
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
That post to you was in anger Lou, and I believe I admitted that.
Could you please explain though, how the original post, posted by me on PB2000 caused you hurt. Thats what I don't understand. If you don't wish to answer, thats fine, but could you tell me that.
Thankyou,
Nikki
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:42:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Sad sara » Sad sara, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:53
But do you mean that it doesn't matter that she got hurt from your postings because they were no meant for her, they were still about her posts?
I think the issue should conentrate on not hurting other peoples feelings... whether you are doing it by following rules or not, don't you think too? If you can avoid someone elses feeling by overlooking minor violations on the law, isn't that better? Or if you still wants to proceed with the law, do in such a subtle way the the person it matters does not get hurt? I think for example it could be possible to ask dr. Bob whether a post is violating the rules in such a way that the person that might be violating the rules does not get hurt... maybe Nikki would have gotten less hurt if you described what you thought was wrong with her post in your first complaint, or maybe considering e-mailing the matter to dr. Bob first just because this time the person you suspected violating the rules was someone who was a bit 'instable' mentally... I know that you don't have to do it that way according to the rules, but just maybe in some cases even when you follow the rules you can hurt someone...
This is very messy, I am sorry. I am just trying to point out that maybe it would be just as good if the rule was 'please try not to hurt someone whether you are following the rules or not'. I don't think you were deliberately hurting this girl, but I don't think she was deliberately violating any rule either....
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:52:08
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
'This statement by you has caused me to see psychiatric help for I do not know how I can deal with it by being allowed to be posted on a mental health forum without me knowing if the moderator, DR. Hsiung, endorses it or not'.
But what I see here Lou, is that she said something that made you seek a counselour, but according to the posts from Nikki, also your post hurt her so much that she had to bring it up with her therapist.... isn't that the same thing? Or doesn't it count since she already had a therapist?
Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You have expressed your hurting in relation to me requesting determinations from the moderator, Dr. Hsiung.And I think that my hurtings are just as important as yours. Your posts directed to me about the jewish great aunt and "evil" are hurting me . Yousay that if a post that does not have a PCB is acceptable means that these posts that have not had a PBC to you by Dr. Hsiung could also have the [potential for some others here on the forum to think that they are acceptable.
The posts are reminding me of the horrors of the nazi holocaust because I did have a jewish great aunt murdered by the nazis becauseshe was a jew. And I have many friends that are survivors of the extermination camps as children. I went to school with them. I lived in the same neighborhood as them. I taught with a man who was born in the camps. I had a friend that was tossed over the barbed wire as a child of the death camp and smuggled out of Germany. He was 4 years old at the time and he told of the horrors that he witnessed. Do I have to be on a mental health board that allows you to poat to me what you have posted and the moderstor writes something to my request that could mean one thing to you as being acceptable and another thing to another as being not acceptable? Dr. Hsing's reply to me about your posts in question does not stop the hurt to me by your post to me that reminds me of the horrors of nazism. I had a jewish great aunt that was murdered and her family with her.
The following link it what your post has caused me to be reminded of. Do not anyone click on this link if you do not want see photos of the horrors of nazism.
Lou
http://www.annefrank.dk/albums13/hitler2.htm
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:59:55
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
> NikkiT2,
> You have expressed your hurting in relation to me requesting determinations from the moderator, Dr. Hsiung.And I think that my hurtings are just as important as yours. Your posts directed to me about the jewish great aunt and "evil" are hurting me . Yousay that if a post that does not have a PCB is acceptable means that these posts that have not had a PBC to you by Dr. Hsiung could also have the [potential for some others here on the forum to think that they are acceptable.
> The posts are reminding me of the horrors of the nazi holocaust because I did have a jewish great aunt murdered by the nazis becauseshe was a jew. And I have many friends that are survivors of the extermination camps as children. I went to school with them. I lived in the same neighborhood as them. I taught with a man who was born in the camps. I had a friend that was tossed over the barbed wire as a child of the death camp and smuggled out of Germany. He was 4 years old at the time and he told of the horrors that he witnessed. Do I have to be on a mental health board that allows you to poat to me what you have posted and the moderstor writes something to my request that could mean one thing to you as being acceptable and another thing to another as being not acceptable? Dr. Hsing's reply to me about your posts in question does not stop the hurt to me by your post to me that reminds me of the horrors of nazism. I had a jewish great aunt that was murdered and her family with her.
> The following link it what your post has caused me to be reminded of. Do not anyone click on this link if you do not want see photos of the horrors of nazism.
> Lou
> http://www.annefrank.dk/albums13/hitler2.htm
I don't think Nikki means that your hurting means less, just as hurting her is just as bad as hurting you... not less, not more. Considering this being a board for all people that suffers from mental disease, I think it is important that both people with PTSD problems AND depressive people should be equally protected from hurting, but maybe you disagree?
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 14:12:36
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
This was the post I was referring to, which predates the others
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:59:55
Ss,
You wrote,[...both... should be equally protected from hurting...].
I agree. I am not saying that it is NikkiT2's intentions to hurt me, for I can not know someone's intentions. And it is also not my intention to hurt anyone, including NikkiT2
But it is my great hope that understanding here could see that I am only wanting a determination made by Dr. Hsiung as to the acceptability or not of these two posts directed to me by NikkiT2. NikkiT2 says that as long as there is not a PBC to the post, then she considers it to be acceptable. Well, if you look at the two posts in question, there are no PCBs associated directly with the posts and how would a reader here know by looking at the posts that they were not acceptable ?If Dr. Hsiung could make that very clear, so that there is no doubt that those two posts in question are not acceptable, or even to be acceptable, then I believe that we could stop all of this paricular discussion and go on.
Lou
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:25:09
In reply to Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by 64bowtie on November 5, 2004, at 7:52:09
Whatever happened to Rod's original question? It seems pretty important to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
I'm sorry to butt in here, but it seems to me that Nikki has extended an olive branch here and I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
I understand fully the hurt you feel and the images you see. When I was in Poland the first time, the only thing I really, really wanted to do was visit Auschwitz/Birknau. I felt it was a duty of mine to witness it. Nothing can truly explain the impact that had on me, but the closest I can come to it is to say I felt a pure murderous rage.
But is it really important for Dr. Bob to make a determination on it? Nikki has already said she posted what she did out of anger and (I believe) apologized. Dr. Bob doesn't usually even get involved when that happens.
So, I guess what's left is for you to understand what it is that hurt her about the first post? I can understand that. She was very upset when she wrote it, was talking as if she had no life to live, revealing her true emotions to the world, and the next thing she knows there is a request for the post to be examined for civility. I think if I were in the same position I would be hurt, too, and I don't hurt easily. If not hurt, I would certainly be thinking there was always someone looking over my shoulder.
But still, the olive branch.
Mel <speaking as a friend>
ps to Nikki: If I am correct (good chance I'm not - I seem to be missing the mark lately) the part he was noticing was the use of the word 'b*st*rd' and 'h*ll.' So, if that is true, and if Lou really wanted to know if that was acceptable in the context that it was used, could you think of a way to word it that wouldn't be hurtful??
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:48
NikkiT2,
You wrote that you posted in anger. I do not consider that posts could be determined as acceptable , if they are not acceptable, because someone posted it in anger. My request for a determination was made as to what could be seen, not what the feelings of the poster was behind the writing of the post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:55:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 14:12:36
Niki T2,
The posts in question here are the ones you posted directly to me. The post that you are referring to was not posted diectly to me and was determined to another poster, pegasus, that the post was acceptable.
Lou
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.