![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
> So, Why are you here?
I was invited. I was honest and I was sanctioned for my honesty. Now I am inquiring about the coherence of the stated sanction. Other dialogue in this thread developed secondarily to my inquiry about why a username is still blocked six weeks after a stated two or three week sanction. The admin said he might have forgotten, or might have intentionally left a username blocked regardless his published statement to the contrary. In response to his request that I resend an e-mail asking him to do what he said he would do, I invited him to better explain here what is his reasoning.
>I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards.Including me?
>There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all".
I have not carved out a position in opposition to rules. I am inquiring why the administrator rules one way (two or three week block) then acts otherwise. Like a poorly placed stop-light or any other capricious law, vague or inconsistently enforced rules can tend to erode confidence in authority.
> And what was wrong with the hippies.
I presume you are referencing my comment that holding a medical license is not consistent with the hippie lifestyle. The hippies around which a cultural mythology was constructed sacrificed. Let me say that again ... on it's own line.
THEY SACRIFICED.
They gave up stable homes, rewarding careers and substantion incomes in an to attempt to establish a less harmful way of life. They attempted to establish communities, with prevention-based healthcare systems. And for their efforts, a bunch of people got rich selling songs about their movement, while those who were really trying to establish a better way of life suffered ridicule and local persecution until for the most part, their alternative communities eroded. I often visit some of the crumbling homesites, now 20 or 30 years later. I look at the left-behind bedframes and child's toys. I talk to the toothless old survivors. I didn't say anything was wrong with the hippies. I said people who work in offices are not 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
Once Capitol Records got hold of the movement, anyone with enough coins to buy the Woodstock album was a flower child. It might have been nobody's conscious intention, but the movement was diverted and coopted. As Steven Stills said in the '90's - the wooden ships were just a hippie dream. For the most part, we only pretended we were leaving -- we stayed behind even though "you don't need us" apparently because we needed them -- them being the capitalists. We did not get back to the land and we did not set our souls free anymore than any generation before or after. But we could have.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:26:31
In reply to Re: failed to unblock, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:28:08
> > I left that name blocked for another reason.
>
> A reason you declined to disclose here on the forum?Right.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too.... » Phillipa, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
> >
> THEY SACRIFICED.Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble? One of the administrative rules here is that posters announce here on the admin. board that they are using a new screen ID. You of course do not have to tell us who you used to be, but the rules state that a poster does have to report that he or she used to be someone other than the current iteration.
And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part? I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills. But of course you lose a percentage communication in this medium via the loss of all the non-verbal material in messages. Welll, and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
It also seems to me that deciding to trust an individual is based more on the characteristics of that individual and our own level of risk tolerance. If one uses a scientific approach; however, one must take the risk of basing the decision whether to trust on a sample and then generalizing to all members of a population. That's potentially a risky, expensive, and time consuming approach. But then again, I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.
Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
gg
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
In reply to Requesting clarification » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
> > >
> > THEY SACRIFICED.
>
> Sounds to me like they merely had different values."Mere" is a subjective term. Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
>
> And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble?A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.
>
> And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question. It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication. Were I to conclude personal findings that informed a publishable study, the first step of publication would be a literature review to report what is already known about the high error rate among healthcare professionals. It is extremely unlikely I would publish any original scientific research on the topic.
>I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills.It might be one of the less costly sources of information. Perhaps I seek information here after having exhausted resources elsewhere.
> and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.So my effort to learn what fits in my personal standards is worthwhile.
> Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
>
I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 10:08:36
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
> > > >
> > > THEY SACRIFICED.
> >
> > Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
>
> "Mere" is a subjective term.Hence the "to me".
>Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
Exactly. Different values. What does emulation have to do with it?
>
>
> A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
> B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
>
>
> >
> > And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
>
>
> I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question.Hmmm, I was sincerely interested in your answer to that clarification.
>It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication.
Hence the "personal" of the "personal research".
>
>
>
> If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?How many physicians?
>
>
> > Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
> >
>
>
> I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
Just a guess.
From references to a past "altercation" and the phraseology and now the bits about emoticons my guess is ....
drumroll .....
so used to be used2b
Am I right?
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:20
In reply to Re: Aha! my guess is ....., posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
Hi Mel,
Just to interject for a moment...as gg stated (and I'm pretty sure she's correct) *so* does not have to say what screen names he/she has used before.
So....perhaps we shouldn't press the question here on the board?
Trying to keep it fair for all. Hope I wasn't rude. Not intended.
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:53:59
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 10:08:36
> > > > >
> > > > THEY SACRIFICED.
> > >
> > > Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
> >
> > "Mere" is a subjective term.
>
> Hence the "to me".
I once thought "to me" clearly refered to a personal perception, and typically predicated an "I-statement" but I have since been informed that in the syntax of this site "to me" is a noun phrase that can be recognized as a declaration of fact, regardless the intent of the writer or usual interpretations of the meaning of the phrase. Though I disagree, exposure to the unique meaning has undermined my confidence in the meaning of the phrase, at least in the context of this site.
> >Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
>
> Exactly. Different values. What does emulation have to do with it?Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
> A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
> > B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.
>
> Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> >No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.
> >
> > > And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
> >
> >
> > I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question.
>
> Hmmm, I was sincerely interested in your answer to that clarification.
Why were you interested?
> > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
>
> How many physicians?If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?
>
> > > Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".
>
> Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
>
> gg
I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent. Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding. So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances. Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:57:51
In reply to Re: Aha! my guess is ..... » AuntieMel, posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:20
Thank you, tenderly. If the administrator had unblocked a user name when he said he would, maybe people would not feel so inclined to guess.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:53:59
> Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
> > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > >
>
> No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.Well I did say please, and if it were easy for me to find, I would not ask for assistance. Perhaps I am not inferring from your words the meaning you imply in said post, because I have not yet found a post that explicitly answers what I have asked.
>
>
> Why were you interested?In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
> > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> >
> > How many physicians?
>
> If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.
>
> > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> >
> > gg
>
>
> I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.
>Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.
> Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>
> I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.
>
>gg
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 14:27:35
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification, posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
If I could figure out whether elements of this exchange are political, faith-oriented, social, alternative or what, I would move it there.
> > Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
>
> Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
>I'm not sure we're supposed to cite any material on this page that could be construed as religious, but there is a line in a particularly old text that says something about "having an appearance of righteousness but lacking the power thereof."
A theoretical person described above would perhaps have wanted to be a hippie, but recognized the social risks of actually attempting to live a rural agrarian lifestyle in an egalitarian community. So they get a good job, maybe with some liberal implications, buy an SUV so they can go hiking and mountain biking in the national forest, decorate their home and work environment with hippie symbols, then buy a home on a conventional mortgage where proceeds from their interest support war-industries. Soon, anyone who has a Grateful Dead sticker, or maybe "Save Tibet" and "No War" sticker on their SUV is described as a hippie, while people who really tried to be hippies are seen as transients and social failures, scorned and disadvantaged for lacking even the basic modern symbol of personal responsibility and freedom -- an automobile.
This sort of cooptation is sometimes more evident in oppression of established cultures. Read Ward Churchhill's "Indians 'R Us" if you want to learn more about cooptation. "Dream Catchers" hanging from auto mirrors around the US are seen as offensive by some Native Americans, who know the real meaning and purpose of those once-in-a-lifetime talismans. School children are asked to cut feathers from construction paper to learn about Indians respect for nature otherwise embodied in deep respect for feathers of the American Bald-Eagle that requires everything to come to a complete stop if a ceremonial feather falls to the ground, while the school football team is named "Redskins" and attended by a mascot who dresses as a Native American and mimicks native dances, then parking his fake-feather regalia on the ground between performances. Some native leaders say this sort of behavior coopts their youth, creating an environment where they would rather reject their native identity than to be the object of imitation.
> > > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > > >
> >
> > No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.there is a green new flag on my first post. I said it was my second post. Now, please...
> >
> > Why were you interested?
>
> In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
>Why do you want to know the answer? Cats are curious about mice and bugs, but we know where that goes...
> > > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> > >
> > > How many physicians?
> >
> > If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?
>
> Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.But can you affirm the legitimacy of my experience, out of which my methods developed?
> >
> > > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> >
> > I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.
>
> It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.Isn't sarcasm forbidden in this forum? Are emoticons sometimes a way of flying sarcastic missions under the radar?
> >Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
>
> That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>
> >So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
>
> Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.That is along the lines of what I recomend for administration of this board. If I were convinced it is a worthwhile endeavor to go to great lengths to comply with a lone administrators notion of what is civil, I might invest the effort. Convinced that part of the problem lies on the other side of the server, I'm focusing my investment there. Except for narrow, debatable infractions, and severe, theatrical offenses staged as protest, I seem to be able to fly with the weather regardless contentious responses to my offerings. As it is, I already invest an inordinate amount of time in each post to assure it will conform with the tedious demands labeled civility that are unlike any I have seen in any venue, except perhaps at an upper-class social gathering where deference to power and privilage are a community code.
>
> > Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
>
> I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>Logical reasoning is an excercise in stating facts. My experience seems to be different than yours. More often, I see stark logical comparisons met by demands to "rephrase that as an I-statement".
> > I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".
>
> Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.Sometimes we might overly focus on what is lost and lose site of what inflection is retained. I beleive you said emoticons are sometimes a rough attempt to portray sarcasm, which might otherwise be repressed because overt sarcasm is forbidden at this forum. If logical comparisons are okay, I could suggest that is similar to a dog cowering when he snarls at or approaches food dominated by a senior member of the pack, thereby both expressing due deference and irrepressable but forbidden aggression at the same time.
> >
> >
>
> gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 16:14:12
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 14:27:35
Respecting so's request to stop asking him/her...can anyone else help me? I am confused by this. I hate when I don't "get" something that others find obvious.
> > > > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.
>
> there is a green new flag on my first post. I said it was my second post. Now, please...Is this the post referred to? http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/499301.html
Can someone help me find the information, please? I can't figure out what I am missing.
Thanks in advance,
gg
Posted by partlycloudy on May 20, 2005, at 16:52:24
In reply to Can anyone else help? I'm confused, posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 16:14:12
I thought that people who changed posting names usually stated as such in a post on Admin.
Like - "This is Partlycloudy. I used to post as Rainyday".
True story.
:-)I can't see any such post i n this case, though.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2005, at 16:57:31
In reply to Can anyone else help? I'm confused, posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 16:14:12
I thought that was the post "so" was referring to, although it's hard to say what someone's second post is exactly. Assuming "so" means here on Admin..that seems to be the second one, but I frankly didn't take time to check the time of day on all of them. But I think this is the only one where there is any mention of posting under previous names.
And no, I don't believe the question of how many screen names were used before is ever answered. We can figure out one, for sure, from what's written, but that's it.
IMO, it wasn't really easy to find even this portion of the answer, either. But of course, easy would have different meanings to everyone, I'm sure.
PS - Sorry if I was unclear here, gg, just came back from T. and you know how foggy and distracted that can make you. In the recent past, I thought I used to be a good writer, at least sometimes. Now I'm not so sure :-( Need a nap.
Posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2005, at 17:21:57
In reply to Re: Can anyone else help? I'm confused » gardenergirl, posted by partlycloudy on May 20, 2005, at 16:52:24
Hi pc,
You're right, don't believe there is such a post.
But...the FAQs say...:
"Please don't post under more than one name at the same time. If for any reason you feel you need to change your posting name, follow these steps:
Stop posting under your current name.
Re-register ("for the first time") under a new name.
Post a message (under your new name) at Psycho-Babble Administration to let others know that you used to post under a different name. This is to try to reassure them that posters who appear to be new really are new. You don't have to say what your old name was."Therefore, "so" does not have to state what his/her old name was, as you did. I think he/she has complied with the rule by explaining something that happened a few weeks ago when he/she was posting under another name (at the link gg gave).
It's just a little ways into the text of a long post, so maybe missed by some, unless you're looking for it.
Although...I'm still a tad lost becasue in "so's" case, by his/her own statements...the new name ("so") is being used becasue he/she was blocked and then never unblocked...for whatever reason. Not because he/she felt the need to change posting names. In that case...is that okay? Should the block situation be resolved first? Maybe not as the stated time period is up. Whoops...giving myself a headache (you, too?)
Hope that makes sense. Probably clear as mud. I'm loopy as all you-know-what today! ;-) - 10der
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 17:31:30
In reply to Re: » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 18, 2005, at 11:28:47
Would it settle your curiousity if I said yes, that is the second post under this screen name? Or would it lead to a new round of discussion about my traits, my interests, or the pertinance of my input? There are technical means available as well to identify my posts -- though the name "so" does tend to frustrate efforts to use the search box to find my posts. It's still useful for finding posts about various topics. :-)
If the rules are as they are described in this thread, a person is not obligated to declare a former screen name, nor to maintain a running tally of former screen names. Those rules would theoretically allow a person to establish a new screen name every week - which might be a good idea if someone didn't want personal details of their medical condition collated and used to identify them in real life. I doubt you would appreciate coming across a site where somebody had collated all the details about your life you have posted here -- maybe where you live, your marital status, your age group, what kind of work you do, what medications you take, what diagnoses you have been given, etc. I would appreciate it if you would not promote efforts to identify me beyond the discussion i am affording you at this time.
There's no need to inflate me to some mythical status. As I appreciate the structure here, group membership is an artifact of registering a screen name, not of comraderies built among a list of most-frequent posters. I'm sure there are many articulate and frustrated people who have posted similar concerns as mine -- reading the archives I occassionally see something I could have written, but I know I didn't. And I am definately not one of the people who wants to attend annual picnics, to disclose my identity to other members of the group, or for that matter to have my posts recognized for anything more than their content in that particular context. As I stated, I stumbled on this site, it is now fresh in my memory, and it is antagonizing my tendency to follow through in discussions I entered. Please respect my efforts to limit the harm those tendencies might cause me. I'm confident you can find more interesting topics with which to engage your curiosity.
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 18:03:36
In reply to Re: Can anyone else help? I'm confused » partlycloudy, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2005, at 17:21:57
> in "so's" case, by his/her own statements...the new name ("so") is being used becasue he/she was blocked and then never unblocked...for whatever reason. Not because he/she felt the need to change posting names.
Nothing I've written supports the latter conclusion. I might have provided a reason to support the "is because" part of your presumption, at least in part, but not the "not because" part. In fact, I'm feeling the need to change posting names right now, because of too much attention to who I am and, for my purposes, too little attention to the content of my discourse.
I took the doctor at his word when he declared the duration of his sanction, though he has some undisclosed reason about which I can easily speculate why he might not have unblocked the second of the names. I'm not that much of a fool, so I never tried again to use the second name, but the first name appeared to have remained blocked. He said maybe he forgot. I wasn't really interested in getting into a private conversation with him after he didn't respond to my first e-mail, so I posted my concerns here. I feel our public conversations are more productive and more worth my time. He didn't seem that interested in discussing at length why he didn't unblock each of the names, so I let it be. But in doing so, I managed to make it somewhat easy to identify the context of the concern I cited.
I figured a person who is responsible to make sure the right person gets the right meds, and who knows how to set up advanced computer scripts could easily set up a record keeping system to let him track and fulfill promises he's made. I don't want to keep citing it as a failure on his part his choice in how he budgets his time, I've described how it was a hardship for me and he seems somewhat interested in my more profound concerns about his role in the site, so can we just let it be?
Posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 18:16:58
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
> 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.
>
> NikkiI guess I'm out of step with reality, Nikki. Personally, I think that your original post in this thread was spt on, and that it was generous of you to offer up your expertise once again.
I'm sorry that your lovely, perfect pearls were not to the original poster's taste, but you know some of us love you no matter what others might say.
I'm sorry you got slammed that way. You don't deserve it.
Posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 18:50:20
In reply to Re: Can anyone else help? I'm confused, posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 18:03:36
>
> I took the doctor at his word when he declared the duration of his sanction, though he has some undisclosed reason about which I can easily speculate why he might not have unblocked the second of the names. I'm not that much of a fool, so I never tried again to use the second name, but the first name appeared to have remained blocked. He said maybe he forgot. I wasn't really interested in getting into a private conversation with him after he didn't respond to my first e-mail, so I posted my concerns here. I feel our public conversations are more productive and more worth my time. He didn't seem that interested in discussing at length why he didn't unblock each of the names, so I let it be.
>I don't believe this part. From the vehemence of your reactions here -- and at the risk of a PBC or even a block myself -- it sounds to me as though you prefer to avoid the private correspondence in favor of public broadcast, because it gives you a chance to air your opinions about Dr Bob yet again.
So far, I haven't seen anything in this thread, nor in your threads under the name Used2B, nor in your threads under the other names you've used in the past -- including your original name -- which indicates any willingness to find a workable compromise. All I've seen is anger, and an absolute unwillingness to compromise.
> I figured a person who is responsible to make sure the right person gets the right meds, and who knows how to set up advanced computer scripts could easily set up a record keeping system to let him track and fulfill promises he's made.
And for the record: we're not Dr Bob's patients. We are people who visit a website he has put up, where we can choose to come and get support -- OR NOT -- and he has no obligation to us whatsoever. He could, should he choose, to take down this site entirely. That would be his choice. How he runs it works most of the time for most of the people here. Those of us who continue to come here after an extended period of time find something here that is useful for us. Why does that bother you so much?
Asking that the man who administers this site to be a doctor to all of us is ridiculous and inappropriate. He is a webmaster and forum administrator here. He is a doctor at a clinic in Chicago. Those things are unrelated, when you come right down to it. As a webmaster, I've found him to be generally fair, although I will admit that it seems he is more likely to check posts from someone who has recently been on his radar after a PBC or a block. That seems wise to me.
I'm sorry that you've had so much damage from your interactions here. I hope that, with sufficient time and the help of a good therapist, you can recover from the trauma.
Posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 18:55:22
In reply to Re: I am so curious » TofuEmmy, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:41:08
> >
>
> > 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.
>
This is disingenuous. Dr Bob has already said that he did not unblock the user name in question for reasons which he would rather not disclose publicly on the board. Perhaps if you email him, he will be more explicit with you.>
>
> > Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
> >
> > emmy
>
> Can I presume "us" and "ourselves" describes the subset of this group that doesn't share my concern about coherence of professional discourse?
>
>Frankly, I can't see any relevance of this thread to any form of "professional discourse."
Maybe I'm too blasted dumb to get it, huh?
I just don't understand why, if this site is so damaging to you, it's so important for you to keep coming here and disrupting it.
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 21:15:14
In reply to Re: I am so curious, posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 18:55:22
> I just don't understand why, if this site is so damaging to you, it's so important for you to keep coming here and disrupting it.
The administrator can handle your -- assertion -- that I am disrupting something. But if he wanted to run a private site, maybe he could put it behind a password, so only members can read it, and only members would be tempted to join in.
Perhaps you find it difficult to understand why anyone continues to do anything that is harmful to them, but I'm sure you can recognize that they do. Are there things you continue to do that are harmful to you?
If responding to my posts seems harmful to you, say so and I will ask you not to respond to me anymore.
I would respond at length to your other querries, but if your position is that I am not not to be believed (you said "I don't believe you"), then I have no basis on which to correspond with you.
Briefly, perhaps you could cite occassions in which the adminstration here has shown a willingness to comprimise, and on something more substantial than where he intends to have dinner with select members of the group he is otherwise supposed to be somewhat removed from in his stance.
And as for therapeutic intent -- he announced in a recent post -- http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461642.html --that one could see his administrative approach as therapeutic in nature. I would be willing to respond further to your -- statements -- but I'm already saying more than you have agreed to accept as genuine.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:21:15
In reply to Re: Can anyone else help? I'm confused, posted by Racer on May 20, 2005, at 18:50:20
> it sounds to me as though you prefer to avoid the private correspondence in favor of public broadcast, because it gives you a chance to air your opinions about Dr Bob yet again.
>
> I haven't seen anything ... which indicates any willingness to find a workable compromise. All I've seen is anger, and an absolute unwillingness to compromise.Sorry, but please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 21, 2005, at 13:44:54
In reply to Re: » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 17:31:30
> Would it settle your curiousity if I said yes, that is the second post under this screen name? Or would it lead to a new round of discussion about my traits, my interests, or the pertinance of my input?
Thanks for verifying about which is your second post under this screen name. Has someone been discussing your traits or pertinence? I would imagine that could be off-putting.
> If the rules are as they are described in this thread, a person is not obligated to declare a former screen name, nor to maintain a running tally of former screen names.
True about the rules. But there is also no rule against asking a question of another poster to clarify one's confusion. Gosh, I seem to be confused a lot lately.
> There's no need to inflate me to some mythical status.Ouch. Pardon me for a moment, I must pause in my typing. My belly is hurting for some reason, and my eyes are kinda watery. Darned allergies. But I guess I wonder if there is no need because...well darn. All I can think of is how inflated mythical objects are seen in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. You know, like Garfield? But perhaps I am being too concrete. Please forgive me my confusion. My brain can make associations that I just blurt out at times. Sorry.
>As I stated, I stumbled on this site, it is now fresh in my memory, and it is antagonizing my tendency to follow through in discussions I entered. Please respect my efforts to limit the harm those tendencies might cause me. I'm confident you can find more interesting topics with which to engage your curiosity.
I have no idea what you are asking here, but it sounds like you are distressed. I hope you have support IRL with which to process these feelings.
Take care,
gg
>
Posted by Phillipa on May 21, 2005, at 17:38:37
In reply to Thanks, I really needed that » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 21, 2005, at 13:44:54
Just my opinion but I don't think Racer was out of line. I've found myself bothered by a lot of what has been said about Dr. Bob and this site. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2005, at 19:29:38
In reply to Re: Thanks, I really needed that, posted by Phillipa on May 21, 2005, at 17:38:37
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...myself bothered by...what has been said about Dr Bob and this site...].
Could you explaine that further?
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.