![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 50. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
Several weeks ago, during a particularly dark day of my life, I made the mistake of finding and posting to this forum. The "support" I got included arguments against my well-informed conclusions about my lack of prospects, and eventually disintegrated into offers --- in one case a demand --- that I participate in some sort of asynchronous anonymous electronic affection, which I find to be unacceptable by my standards. For attempting to explain my personal perceptions about this sort of affection, I was accused of claiming my perceptions were instead findings of fact, which I otherwise well know how to phrase as factual findings and not as personal opinions. A lengthy debate ensued in which the doctor and others claimed that a statement about what something is "To me" is not an "I-statement."
I was deemed uncivil and eventually blocked --- for something I had written two days earlier and which the doctor did not cite until after he had interacted with me in subsequent posts.
Whatever. Having been declared uncivil, I demonstrated exactly the character he attributed to me, having found no acceptance here for my more civil nature.
So after blocking me for one week, this doctor claimed he would, for my deliberate offensiveness, double the term of his punitive action, resulting in either a two-week or a three-week sanction. Now, six weeks after his supposed one-week block, he has still failed to unblock the user name I registered. Nor did he reply to my e-mail to him.
Since we are not allowed to discuss here whether doctors are generally trustworthy, or whether we perceive doctors to generally be deserving of trust, I will decline to disclose any perceptions I might hold about why he would, by intent or by neglect, so misalign his words and his deeds. I simply enter this statement of fact as a matter of record. He claimed to have blocked me for two or three weeks, then apparently blocked me indefinately.
I will add that my involvement in this site has not been at all helpful and has probably been harmful to me. Now even finding the site on my history list or in Internet searches evokes feelings of dread, which contribute to a deteriorating condition I might have salvaged had I not let myself get involved here. My perception that administrative action by an admired practitioner is not consistent with the practitioner's administrative declarations seems to support my general sense that no coherent meaning inhabits human behavior. The experience also damaged any likelihood that I would seek professional care for a mental health problem or for any other health concern.
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 1:30:43
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
If you use Internet Explorer, go to the tools menu, then internet option, and from there you clear your cache ("Temporary internet file"), and also clear your history.
When doing google searches, add -"dr bob" to them and they won't bring back any page from here.
I hope that helps with your distress.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 1:37:33
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
> Several weeks ago, during a particularly dark day of my life, I made the mistake of finding and posting to this forum.
Today was dark, too? :-)
> six weeks after his supposed one-week block, he has still failed to unblock the user name I registered. Nor did he reply to my e-mail to him.
Sorry, I can get behind. Could you send it to me again? I left that name blocked for another reason.
> no coherent meaning inhabits human behavior.
Or meaning may not be apparent.
> The experience also damaged any likelihood that I would seek professional care for a mental health problem or for any other health concern.
Don't assume all professionals are like me!
Bob
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:28:08
In reply to Re: failed to be unblocked, posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 1:37:33
I wonder about the title you gave to your post -"Failed to be unblocked". The action in question was to unblock, the failure to which you seem to refer was a failure to perform the action. You are the agent of action in this context, but you seem to infer that it was a failure on my part that led to your inaction. In no way did I "fail" so as to cause myself not to be unblocked for reasons not otherwise stated here in this forum. Just to be clear, I am writing about your actions, not about mine. If you would like to discuss a particular action of mine, please state to which action you refer.
>
> Sorry, I can get behind. Could you send it to me again? I left that name blocked for another reason.A reason you declined to disclose here on the forum? Perhaps if you would disclose, in the context of a particular post, the reasons you blocked a particular user name and the duration for which you intend to block that username, I will not need to repeatedly clamor for a reply to my e-mails.
> > The experience also damaged any likelihood that I would seek professional care for a mental health problem or for any other health concern.
>
> Don't assume all professionals are like me!
>
> BobMy well-informed perception is that your rhetorical style is very similar to that of other top-level health-care professionals.
Since a posture of complete trustworthiness is a standard part of the healthcare-giver presentation, it would be difficult if not impossible to select trustworthy professionals from a group among which one suspects a majority might not be deserving of trust. Each experience with a professional whose rhetoric does not comport with their behavior or with science further degrades the likelihood I will seek care for a readily treatable but life-threatening ailment I suffer.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:43:44
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 1:30:43
I don't know if you care how I might feel about my perception that you don't presume me so intelligent as to already know how delete history files in each of the browsers I use, including the index.dat files hidden in Internet Explorer, which you did not mention. Perhaps I presume too much understanding from an at-large readership, but I mentioned my distress in seeing the site on history lists only as a way of emphasizing the distress, not as a querry for technical means to remove artifacts that trigger distress.
> If you use Internet Explorer, go to the tools menu, then internet option, and from there you clear your cache ("Temporary internet file"), and also clear your history.
>To expose the futility of removing artifacts as a means of blocking unpleasant memories I could articulate means of destroying persistant memories, but as I understand the rules, such means are not a fair topic of discussion here.
> When doing google searches, add -"dr bob" to them and they won't bring back any page from here.
That would require me to think about this site each time I use a search engine.
> I hope that helps with your distress.
>Oh.
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » NikkiT2, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:43:44
Apologies.
I often provide low level IT support to people here.
I didn't presume anything. I also didn't presume knowledge of how to do it.
I epxlained as I would explain to any other person here.
Theres no need to thank me for attempting to help, which is what I was doing, as abuse is always much preferred by those of us who work in IT support.
Nikki
Posted by partlycloudy on May 18, 2005, at 7:04:16
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
> Theres no need to thank me for attempting to help, which is what I was doing, as abuse is always much preferred by those of us who work in IT support.
>
> Nikki*LOL*
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 9:24:08
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
I hesitate to jump in here after your response to Nikki, but what the heck.
When I am at work, I act a certain way which is dictated by the norms in that environment. My interactions fall within particular boundaries which are appropriate to that situation.
When I am at a volunteer site, the boundaries, relationships, etc. are much different, so I am able to act differently.
Of course, at home or when socializing, yet again - I woudl be perceived differently.
I assume that Dr. Bob is also different at work, at Babble, and at home. So, I think that Bob the webmaster is VERY different from Dr. Bob the psychiatrist. I'm sure the relationships he has with his college patients is different than the ones he has with Dinah, or 64Bowtie, for instance. So, to assume that seeing a psychiatrist in his office would be the same as dealing with Bob online, imo, is inaccurate.
More importantly - to assume that Dr Bob the webmaster is the same as all psychiatrists is, imo, dangerous. Bob has very strict rules here - and has needed to act as "the enforcer" in order to keep this site going in the manner he wants - as webmaster.
On the other hand, my psychiatrist is a laid back hippy with long hair and a silly grin. He is sweet, and caring and emotional. He has also kept me alive.
I hope you will reconsider your idea that all psychiatrists are like Dr Bob is here. I know for a fact, by my own many years of experience that this is just not true.
To save/improve your own life, I hope you will reconsider. There are some wonderful therapists and pdocs out there. You just need to find the ones who work for you.
This was all written with good intentions - I hope it is taken that way.
emmy
Posted by gardenergirl on May 18, 2005, at 11:26:05
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
And I appreciate it.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 18, 2005, at 11:28:47
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
So to clarify, this is your third screen name on Babble?
gg
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 13:05:17
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 9:24:08
> When I am at a volunteer site, the boundaries, relationships, etc. are much different, so I am able to act differently.
A difference for me would be that, at work, I am required to think critically and to state my criticisms in venues where they may be tested -- including my critiques of ideas, and of the credibility of individuals.
>
> More importantly - to assume that Dr Bob the webmaster is the same as all psychiatrists is, imo, dangerous.My findings involve a very specific area, that being the extent to which authoritative rhetoric comports with any authority to be found in scientific knowledge. The idea that "I'm in charge, so I know best whether I tell you what I think I know or not" does not always or even often, in my experience, comport with any actual scientific knowledge specific to my symptoms.
>Bob has very strict rules here - and has needed >to act as "the enforcer" in order to keep this >site going in the manner he wants - as webmaster.
And I am saying the things he has chosen to do, to satisfy his desires as a web enthusiast, have been harmful to me. His rules might be strict, but they are not well defined, so the rule is strict compliance with his notion of civility, which he will define when he sees it, or make up as he goes along.
> On the other hand, my psychiatrist is a laid back hippy with long hair and a silly grin. He is sweet, and caring and emotional. He has also kept me alive.The hippies I know sacrificed. They lived shorter lives because the chose to forego generous incomes in favor of participating in a lifestyle they hoped would avoid mental diseases. Pursuit of a medical degree is not consistent with the hippie lifestyle as I know it. For that matter, neither is being a rock-n-roll star living in a beach-front mansion.
Since speculation based on personal perceptions of other's sincerety is among the growing list of censored topics at this site, I can't offer much about the social dynamic that developed around the "hippie" ideal, except to say that for the most part, it was more of a political ideal of affluent youth than a practical lifestyle pursued by social reformers. For that reason, many poor and working class youths were misled into a non-existent social movement by marketeers who found profit in mass-producing symbolic "hippie" culture. I'm sure any further discussion of this matter should be pigeon-holed to the "phsychobabble hippie" board.
> I hope you will reconsider your idea that all psychiatrists are like Dr Bob is here. I know for a fact, by my own many years of experience that this is just not true.
My findings do not just include review of other psychiatrists, but of most top-level healthcare-givers I have encountered, including those of mundane fields whose practice could save my life if I could find enough faith in their inconsistent opinions. It appears to me these well-paid individuals style their opinions to satisfy an audience of their well-paid peers and will so interpret clinical evidence regardless scientific evidence that suggests other interpretations.> To save/improve your own life, I hope you will reconsider.
And how long should I spend my money, at $100 a whack, guessing on which healthcare-giver will be able to silence in their own mind the din of medical school, peer-bonding conferences and industry-funded junkets so as to attend to my specific circumstances.
>
> This was all written with good intentions - I hope it is taken that way.Your intentions might be good, but you lack enough knowledge of my experience to support effective involvment in the course of my life.
> emmy
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
Nikki,
Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:20
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
You say that your participation was "not at all helpful and has probably been harmful."
I'm not doubting your perception - babble isn't one-size-fits-all - nor am I doubting your feelings about your experience.
So why is it important to you to be unblocked?
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
> So why is it important to you to be unblocked?Did I say it was important? My concern centers more around trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers.
Apparently, I am willing to suffer further harm to resolve my curiosity.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
I didn't recognize your post as an attempt to help, which is why I couched me reply as an "I-statement" about my perception as something that might not represent your actual motives. To me, the post seemed like a XXX XXXX, or XXXXXXX, which I might not enjoy enough preference from the administrator to be allowed to complain about.
The irony in your advice, to me, was that you suggested I erase memories of this site by remembering to include the name of the site as an exclusion string each time I conducted a search for topics that might return links to this site. Hence, you seem to recommend that I avoid a triggered memory by reinforcing a recalled memory. Ironic advice is sometimes seen as XXXXXXX.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:54:10
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
> Nikki,
>
> Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.A person doesn't have to be stupid not to know how to clear history lists. Unless you delete the index.dat files in Internet Explorer, your history is erased only from view by those lacking the technical savy to explore the .dat file. Erasure of the .dat files can only be done from the command line or with a utility software. That is why your visited links still appear in the visited link color in IE, even after you have deleted history, cookies and temporary internet files.
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
I'm sorry. I was, truly, trying to help.
I posted to Dinah on social that I find "fluffy" words hard to come by.. I said it is much ezsier for me to give practical advice, but I was worried that people would misconstrue this as me not caring. If I didn't care, believe me, I wouldn't have posted at all.
I didn't post about index.dat as its not the sort of the thing the average pay person wants to mess about with, even knows exists, and isn't going to accidently come across to be triggered by.
I work in IT support, and that kind of answer is one I can give, and one that comes naturally.But it seems my thoughts on how my offers for help might be perceived were correct. I guess thats that experiment over.
Do not worry, I won't post to you again, and I ask that you also not post to me again.
Posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
Nikki, don't you dare conclude your experiment!
Try it on a few others. Several people on this thread alone (and you can add me to it) have stated that they appreciate your input.
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
In reply to Re: I am so curious, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
I understand now that I cannot offer you any support because I don't know your life well enough. Okey doke. I won't do that again. So I guess you didn't come to Babble for support or help from posters? OK. So you are here again in order to...what? I keep reading this:
"trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers."
and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?
You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic? and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us? do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??
Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
emmy
Posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » NikkiT2, posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
...I'd be honored to have you "experiment" on me in that way!
Keep the IT stuff coming - it's great!
Posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
In reply to Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
So, Why are you here? I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards. If we disagree at times that's okay. i think we usually try and work it out amongst ourselves. If that doesn't happen we take it to the Administrator of this site Dr. Bob whom I have the utter most respect. There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all". And what was wrong with the hippies. I consider myself a "Flower Child" even though I was married and had 2 children at the time. John Lennon was an inspiration to me. I didn't use illegal drugs or march in rallies. And our generation is running the World now. Maybe not to everyone's liking but then noone is perfect. Just my 2 cents. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Posted by Phillipa on May 19, 2005, at 0:30:33
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Sorry I didn't! I never look at the subject line. I guess I should. My deepest apologies. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:41:08
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
> and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?I believe you that you don't understand what you read, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that you "can't" understand.
I'm saying that I would hope doctors during a decade of post-secondary academic training would develop the ability to communicate clearly and consistently, and in such a way that their words conform with their actions.
I'm saying I'm trying to sort out whether, when a doctor speaks to me, he or she is trying to convey useful information upon which I can make an informed decision or instead is trying to get me to perform a certain action.
> You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic?I'm saying a medical license is about the highest tier in the medical profession, short of public health positions such as surgeon general. I am clasifying all licensed physicians as senior level health care givers, as opposed to the majority of care givers who are PA's, nurses, technicians, aides and orderlies.
> and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us?Specifically, it concerned me that his statement that he would block a username for two or three weeks did not cohere with his behavior, which apparently was to block a username indefinately.
> do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
This is a specific incident that seems to reflect a pattern, at least in as much as my perception has discerned, in which physicians don't especially care whether their discourse with less prestigious individuals is coherent. The pattern seems to involve both this particular doctor and his peers. In the context of that pattern, this particular doctor administers a set of self-styled rules he will tell us about some time in the future, in addition to those he has already made up. It was running afoul of those ill-defined rules that led to my interest in his concern for performing as he stated he would. i.e. systematically unblocking people when he said.
>
> That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??The purpose of the site is support and uh .... uhm ... education? Is it okay that I better educate myself regarding the coherence of dialogue offered by medical professionals?
> Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
>
> emmyCan I presume "us" and "ourselves" describes the subset of this group that doesn't share my concern about coherence of professional discourse?
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.