![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 15:51:45
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » alexandra_k, posted by holymama on October 17, 2005, at 15:22:33
> Thank you for your really kind and humble words. That means a great amount to me.
You gave me a lot of kind and humble words during the thread and I ignored them to continue with unemotive discussion.
But those words meant a great deal to me and they were probably what... Prevented me from feeling hurt or anything with you. I am so very sorry I did not respond in kind as the thread was progressing.
> Although I was trying to keep a cool head, I know that during parts of this thread I was battling some really angry and defensive feelings.Me too.
But then I managed to convince myself... They were solely of my own making.
> Plus, I felt stuck into defending a position I wasn't too sure of taking on...Yes. I don't think we were really talked to...
Rather we were talked at in the interests of making a point. We were platforms which were used so that someone else could springboard their ideas off of us. I do think... That one of the charges that was made... About how we ignored Deneb's humanity... I do think that that is what this poster did to us. He / She wasn't so interested in what we had to say...
As in making their points.
> Anyway, thank you so much for your last post. I had been feeling kind of hurt -- not especially by you, but by the whole situation in general. I do feel better.You are welcome.
I feel... Pretty messed up at the moment, truth be told. I need to do some hard thinking... But I also have a lot of work to do at the moment so I'll have to put that on hold.> The whole experience is making me think a lot more about 'helping' someone...that's a good thing. Hopefully more of our future discussions can be made in less heated atmospheres.
Yes. I do hope our future discussions are made in more supportive atmospheres.
I'm not sure what I think anymore...
I think that what I need to do...
Is put all of my present beliefs on hold...
And lock myself away somewhere...
To think them through
And figure out just what I do believe.Like Descartes...
But...
I don't think that will help.Reason and Emotion
The Trouble that Can Occur...
When the later is sacrified
for the formerthanks for not holding this against me.
Posted by henrietta on October 17, 2005, at 20:17:27
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » holymama, posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 15:51:45
Alex---you are so incredible. You think, reason, feel, challenge, explore, and then go back and re-examine yourself. You live the counselling you offer. You walk the talk. God, I admire you!!!
hen
Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 20:36:08
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » alexandra_k, posted by henrietta on October 17, 2005, at 20:17:27
thank you. that means a lot.
i'm glad you are still here :-)
Posted by gardenergirl on October 17, 2005, at 23:32:30
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » henrietta, posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 20:36:08
Hi verne,
GG here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.A post of yours on this thread was deleted as it was a reply to a post that also was deleted.
Just wanted to let you know in case you wondered what happened to it.
Regards,
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 18, 2005, at 21:09:04
In reply to Re: I'm sorry » holymama, posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2005, at 15:51:45
> Yes. I don't think we were really talked to...
Rather we were talked at in the interests of making a point. We were platforms which were used so that someone else could springboard their ideas off of us. I do think... That one of the charges that was made... About how we ignored Deneb's humanity... I do think that that is what this poster did to us. He / She wasn't so interested in what we had to say... As in making their points.though i should also add that in some instances civil disobedience may well be justified and that given the serious nature of the topic (the initial reason for the posts - involountary hospitalisation)... this may well be one of those cases...
and in such circumstances... how people feel about what is said is... something of a side issue.
but with respect to maintaining order and a supportive atmosphere...
well. that is something of a side issue too.
i have heard some discussion around socrates... whether it would have been possible for him to have made his points and shown people that they didn't know as much as they think they did WITHOUT enraging / frustrating them so...
or whether he needed to to what he did in order to be heard.i'm not sure...
maybe... he did need to matyr himself.still thinking...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 18, 2005, at 21:16:02
In reply to Re: the point, posted by alexandra_k on October 18, 2005, at 21:09:04
i value meaningful connections to other people.
for me... they help me feel / believe that my life is worth living. i suppose that is why... i choose to be empathetic. because other people being empathetic towards me is something that i find meaningful and it helps give me the strength to continue when without that support i don't think i would be able to.and so i suppose... i want to live.
i want to live a meaningful life.
and i find emotional connections to be meaningful.but there are other things that i value too.
and sometimes it can be hard to figure out what should take priority.
Posted by verne on October 18, 2005, at 22:38:09
In reply to Re: what i value, posted by alexandra_k on October 18, 2005, at 21:16:02
Coming from a lack of self and emptiness, I guess I can't offer advice, except that,
please don't let the group sway you, and bully you, into what's politically correct. The DrBoB inside crowd has an influence of its own, a dynamic that drags us all down.
Please get your emotional support from REAL people. I think this is a great site but not a good support group.
If anyone dares to be sincere, there's usually an uproar. Scambuster, "so", whatever the name, is banned yet the mob that claimed he was "anti-social" is given a free pass. I guess that's not a "put down".
Where's the integrity? By the way, I don't know Scambuster, "so" or maryk. But whoever they are, they are REAL
Verne
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2005, at 4:06:51
In reply to Re: what i value » alexandra_k, posted by verne on October 18, 2005, at 22:38:09
> The DrBoB inside crowd has an influence of its own, a dynamic that drags us all down.
First, please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
It tends to be more civil to talk about how you feel than what others do, for example, by using I-statements. Do you feel like an outsider here?
> please don't let the group sway you, and bully you, into what's politically correct.
Please don't let others bully you into what's politically incorrect, either?
> Please get your emotional support from REAL people.
>
> I don't know Scambuster, "so" or maryk. But whoever they are, they are REALEveryone here is a real person!
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 verne on October 19, 2005, at 4:43:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2005, at 4:06:51
I'm not certain about what's real.
Perhaps the gap between the cyberhug and real hug is not easily bridged. Sort of like the Russians and Americans converging on the River Elbe at the end of World War II, with the fleeing Germans inbetween.
You ask whether I feel like an "outsider" here. I do.
When I suggested that some posters are more "real" than others, I now realize I was mistaken.
Nevertheless, I yearn for a kind of integrity and honesty of language, heart, and soul, evinced by "ScamBuster", "So", or "Previously Known As"... I would venture he's more geniune or real, yet I don't want to diminish anyone else's experience, "realness", or value.
Bear with me as I explore this.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on October 19, 2005, at 7:06:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on October 19, 2005, at 4:43:19
> Perhaps the gap between the cyberhug and real hug is not easily bridged.
yeah. they are different.
but then so is this:
:-)
nature of the medium i suppose.
there are advantages and disadvantages.
i find it much easier to talk about things that are hard for me on the boards than irl.
because...
i do get afraid of people evaluating me negatively. poking fun or whatever. and what can be great about seeing so many supportive posts is that it can assist one be able to take a risk with something that is hard. and get a supportive response. and that can help give one confidence. the confidence to talk about it irl too. at least... i've found those things in my case.but you have to take a risk to get a little gain
and if that works out okay
then you can take bigger risks for bigger gains
in my experience
that helps.
> You ask whether I feel like an "outsider" here. I do.i'd give you a cyberhug but thats probably not so helpful to you. sometimes it can take a little while to meet like minded individuals. where on earth did larry get to???? have you met toph? you might find atticus amusing. the writing board. social is fairly... social. suprise suprise. i just take whatever i am in the mood for from there. don't partake in the 'silly' threads very often (did not mean that in a judgemental way) but sometimes i'm in one of those moods or a little flat or feeling lonely and they help pick me up.
> Nevertheless, I yearn for a kind of integrity and honesty of language, heart, and soul, evinced by "ScamBuster", "So", or "Previously Known As"...are there some people who aren't blocked that kind of do that too? maybe babble to them...
> Bear with me as I explore this.:-)
Posted by Nickengland on October 19, 2005, at 10:47:10
In reply to Re: what i value » alexandra_k, posted by verne on October 18, 2005, at 22:38:09
Hi Verne,
>The DrBoB inside crowd has an influence of its own, a dynamic that drags us all down.
It can feel like that at times, I guess thats a reality that you've felt for yourself and i'm truely sorry to hear that, especially if you felt in anyway I was any part of it. Conversely, the members here can have an affect or dynamic that can postively lift you up... I bet you have had an affect on other members here that has made them feel good :-)
Its worth considering this too, something I noticed alittle while back with the posts on administration is they are different from the other boards at first I couldn't quite figure out what it was, until I found out this board in particular isn't for support or education specifically, so at times I guess it can feel like your not getting any help here, but then you post on the other boards and much help, support and knowledge is widely available but also I think indriectly its available here but its use can be controversial ;-)
>Please get your emotional support from REAL people.
Great advice!.. as in like getting emotional support (as well as you can recieve here, its virtual in a sense) everyone needs emotional support from real people in real life away from the computer, I personally think anyway. If they unfortunately do not have that, then the next best thing could be having 'virtual support' which in turn could lead them to 'real' support, possibly with the outcome of having both perhaps?
>I think this is a great site but not a good support group.
I'm glad you think its a great site too :-) I don't think the Administration board is the 'best' of boards for support, but then its for discussion of the rest of the support boards..
>If anyone dares to be sincere, there's usually an uproar. Scambuster, "so", whatever the name, is banned yet the mob that claimed he was "anti-social" is given a free pass. I guess that's not a "put down".
ScamBuster was already a banned poster from a fair few blocks previous. I have noticed to that in some of his posts there is sincerity. Also I have notice and felt that there is a clear piece of writing and to which is in the archives of only a couple of months ago which says he feels this site should be shut down, Dr Bob should lose his medical licence, and also I caught the posts which are posts in the pattern he/she does after a block which then compares the deputies to a Nazi Regime (very uncivily) and also other things of a very uncivil nature and like everyone, has their own reality to how they perciveve things, thats fine I guess, as long as its within laws (generally speaking) right down to rules within an online forum. If they're repsected then theres not a problem, but the posts always get very uncivil near to the end and so it ends up blocked....whilst blocked he then comes back and posts under a different name, the process repeats itself, i've noticed anyway.
If the pattern was that he got blocked, waited till the block was up, then came back and posted...remained civil and within the rules, he's still be posting here today..
To draw an anology, with the anti social aspect, if someone goes to a real life support group, or a night club and they behave in a civil way, theres no problem generally speaking, however if they behave in a way that is not accpetable to the rules of the estabilishment, then the owners have the right to remove/block/ban them.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on October 19, 2005, at 11:44:48
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on October 19, 2005, at 4:43:19
Hello again Verne :-)
>Bear with me as I explore this.
I think, or at least remember from the deleted posts you had some interest into where Scambuster aquired some of his reading material, or something along those lines..I think I would be right in saying you found his knowledge and what he had to say very interesting - as did I, as I said to Scambuster in my posts to him/her..
'so' Posted this a few months back..
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529558.html
Its a magazine by the church of Scientology, to which also (I havent got the links to post but can if would like me too) 'so' a while ago that he felt put down because a statement another poster made about him/her saying that Scientologists were creepy. 'So' as I remember said "don't call me creepy" basically he was defending his beliefs and faiths which is admirable to do.
When reading through that link I found that 'so' writings were of a similar nature towards psychiatry in general as the magazine was...
Thought i'd give you some more information I read up on too about the subject, I thought you might find the information useful to read up on....I certainly did...
-------------------------------------------------
Scientology and Psychiatry
Scientology is publicly, and often vehemently, opposed to psychiatry and psychology. According to the Church, this is focused on psychiatry's practices.
This theme also appears in some of Hubbard's literary works. In Hubbard's Mission Earth series, various characters praise and criticize these methods; and the antagonists in his novel Battlefield Earth are called Psychlos, a similar allusion.
L. Ron Hubbard was bitterly critical of psychiatry's citation of physical causes for mental disorders, for instance chemical imbalances in the brain. Although there are many questions remaining, the statements by Hubbard deny that psychiatry through the scientific method has shown some psychiatric disorders are related to anatomical and chemical cerebral anomalies. Furthermore, it is evident much of his criticism is based upon old and flawed information regarding psychiatry [16]. He regarded psychiatrists as denying human spirituality and peddling fake cures. He was also convinced psychiatrists were themselves deeply unethical individuals, committing "extortion, mayhem and murder. Our files are full of evidence on them." [17] The Church of Scientology claims that psychiatry was responsible for World War I [18], the rise of Hitler and Stalin [19], the decline in education standards in the United States [20], the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo [21], and even the September 11th attacks [22]. However, for all these statements, Hubbard has failed to present any evidence supporting his view of psychiatry.
Scientology's opposition to psychiatry has also undoubtedly been influenced by the fact that a number of psychiatrists have strongly spoken out against the Church of Scientology, resulting in pressure from the media and governments. Additionally, after Hubbard's book on Dianetics was published, in which he tried to present a new form of psychotherapy, the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients until its effectiveness could be proven. Because of this critique Hubbard came to believe psychiatrists were behind a worldwide conspiracy to attack Scientology and create a "world government" run by psychiatrists on behalf of Soviet Russia.
Our enemies are less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains and they, oddly enough, run all the mental health groups in the world that had sprung up ...
Their apparent programme was to use mental health, which is to say psychiatric electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy, to remove from their path any political dissenters ... These fellows have gotten nearly every government in the world to owe them considerable quantities of money through various chicaneries and they control, of course, income tax, government finance — (Harold) Wilson, for instance, the current Premier of England, is totally involved with these fellows and talks about nothing else actually. (Hubbard, Ron's Journal 67 [23])
In 1966, Hubbard declared war on psychiatry, telling Scientologists "We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one." He committed the Church of Scientology to eradicating psychiatry in 1969, announcing "Our war has been forced to become 'To take over absolutely the field of mental healing on this planet in all forms.'" [24] Not coincidentally, the Church of Scientology founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights that same year as its primary vehicle for attacking psychiatry.Around the same time, Hubbard decided psychiatrists were an ancient evil that had been a problem for billions of years. He cast them in the role of assisting Xenu's genocide of 75 million years ago. In a 1982 bulletin entitled "Pain and Sex", Hubbard declares that "pain and sex were the INVENTED TOOLS of degradation", having been devised eons ago by psychiatrists "who have been on the [time] track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe." (Hubbard, HCO Bulletin of 26 August 1982)
Celebrity Scientologists, notably Tom Cruise, have been extremely vocal in attacking the use of psychiatric medication. Their position has attracted considerable criticism from psychiatrists, physicians, and mentally ill individuals who cite numerous scientific studies showing benefit from psychiatry. Nevertheless, Scientology continues to stand behind their collective disgust with the actions of Psychiatry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_and_psychiatry
-------------------------------------------------
Hubbard also decided that psychiatrists were an ancient evil that had been a problem for billions of years. He cast them in the role of assisting Xenu's genocide of 75 million years ago. In a 1982 bulletin entitled "Pain and Sex", Hubbard declares that "pain and sex were the INVENTED TOOLS of degradation", having been devised eons ago by psychiatrists "who have been on the [time] track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe." (Hubbard, HCO Bulletin of 26 August 1982)
The Church of Scientology rejects the claim that what are commonly called "mental diseases" can have exclusively a biological basis and holds that such conditions have exclusively mental/spiritual causes, which can be corrected by Scientology counseling. On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has policies which forbid the counseling of mentally ill people or those who have received psychiatric treatment. The organization has been known to refuse assistance for persons suffering from notable mental disorders; for some, it has developed special procedures for "handling" these problems, such as the Introspection Rundown.
Scientology criticizes that the goal of psychology and psychiatry must not be to reduce crime, insanity, or war, because otherwise, with all of the billions of dollars funding them, some improvement would have been seen in the 20th century. This of course relies on assumptions that may not be shared by non-Scientologists; sufferers from mania, for instance, would generally consider the discovery of medications in the 20th century that limit their episodes of ill-judged and frequently self-harmful behavior to be "improvement"; a Scientologist, however, considering all psychiatric drugs to be harmful, would assert that the mania sufferer has in fact simply become a drug abuser and that his perception that his quality of life is improved is illusory
Counterpositions
All counterpositions have in common that they see Scientology's description of psychiatry and psychology as distorted, out of date or inaccurate, if not outright wrong.Critics of Scientology have pointed out that Hubbard asked in 1947 for psychiatric care, and that the coroner found after his death that Hubbard had been injected with the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril.
Mental health care professionals are not very worried that the public will take the publications by CCHR seriously. They do, however, contend that when these materials are quoted secondhand, without attribution to the Church of Scientology, they have a more harmful impact.
Also without signing any waivers, Scientologists believe firmly in Hubbard's claims about psychiatrists. Scientologist Lisa McPherson left a psychiatric hospital because of her beliefs in Scientology, and later died in the care of Scientologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry
-------------------------------------------------
Sorry for all the cut and pasting, but hopefully, even if its not relavant, it does make for some very fasinating reading!
I guess it depends on which belief structure one has, even right down to medical treatment because of a relgion, be that of the case in scientology, then from what I understand in suicide, they believe more or less that there should not be any medical intervention, where as, the belief stucture, not in religion, but in the medical profession, believes there should be intervention, as is proved it can and does save lifes, as i'm sure to those of Scientologists, they're treatment has saved them.
Whatever works right and what you believe in right, according to your own beliefs at the end of the day.
Hope the information is helpful...
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on October 19, 2005, at 12:08:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » verne, posted by Nickengland on October 19, 2005, at 11:44:48
This makes for interesting reading
Read the links below too, written by a doctor with a Ph.D. and Lawrence Wollersheim who won 8.7 million dollar lawsuit against Scientology because of psychological injuries, but the link is about psychological mind control, very intersting!
http://www.factnet.org/rancho4.htm
Now I best get on with the other threads - days are getting darker and darker I need to investigate light boxes! (plus this isn't Administration related is it?) lol
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by henrietta on October 19, 2005, at 20:11:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2005, at 4:06:51
IMHO the very best people are outsiders. best writers, artists, thinkers, politicos, people who make social changes, religious leaders, doctors, kings, presidents, scientists. IMHO the scariest are outsiders who strive to be insiders. even scarier
than to- the- manor-born insiders. (well, I can think of one current exception,not here in this little pond, but in the real world, the very real world, but that's neither here nor there, and is only my personal view.)
my question is, bob, do you think feeling like an "outsider" is a condition in need of remedy?
rhetorical. i know the answer.
your pal, hen
Posted by alexandra_k on October 19, 2005, at 21:15:49
In reply to Re: please be civil++dr bob, posted by henrietta on October 19, 2005, at 20:11:15
what do you mean by 'outsider'?
someone who doesn't feel that they belong?i feel differently in different contexts.
when i first came here i felt like an outsider.
i don't feel like an outsider anymore.
when i post at pc i feel like an outsider.
sometimes at uni i feel like an outsider.
othertimes i don't...i like to feel that i belong.
belong in the sense of being welcome.
other people appreciating my contribution
valuing my presence and what i have to say.but...
i wouldn't do just anything to gain other peoples approval.
i wouldn't do just anything to feel like an insider.
some groups i don't really want to be part of
i don't want to feel like an insider
what seems to be required to get there is something i don't want to do.here...
it is supporting others that has helped me come to feel accepted here.
because i guess we value people who support us
and so if i support other people they are likely to come to value meand then i feel part of things and feel connected to other people.
don't know if this helps...
Posted by Declan on October 20, 2005, at 0:19:32
In reply to Doesn't this belong on faith? » depukies » Nickengland, posted by Dear_sweety on October 19, 2005, at 22:48:11
I don't understand modern technology, so I never have a clue if so (for example) is scambuster, and so on. How do you people figure this out? Just from the sound of the posts? And how is it sorted out anyway? I mean if I set up a new email adress, which would take me all night, how could I be found out, so to speak, if it's not a trade secret.
Declan
Posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 1:01:11
In reply to Who's who, posted by Declan on October 20, 2005, at 0:19:32
It's simply an assumption, it happens all the time. (I've been here too long)
People always give their carefully deducted reasons as to why they are sure so and so is so and so..The Scientology aspect is a red herring.
So was not a card carrying Scientologist, he was making a point..this I know. Not that I find the Tenets of Scientology any more frightening than the tenets of any other faith revealed in detail.
And a lot of people are anti-psychiatry.I was brought up Catholic.. until the 1970's women were to go to confession if they wore tampons.. it was apparently sinful as they recieved some sort of "pleasure" from it.
Transubstantiation..Eating a dead body.. that's what communion is.
I don't know if there is any connection between So and Scambuster, they are certainly both precise, intelligent and articulate, but their have been a few extremely intelligent Anti-Babble folks float through here through the years.
Issues and anger aside, My fiance's writing style is uncannily close to Scambuster, he has nothing to do with babble, I don't think he even knows of it's existance.
I do know that if he posted here, taking issue with it people would be *sure* it was him.
Posted by Declan on October 20, 2005, at 3:25:52
In reply to Re: Who's who » Declan, posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 1:01:11
A young person will approach transubstantiation or whatever and say 'is it true?' What I feel with that stuff now is a sense of wonder. I once thought (and sometimes still do) that this was a boring world, but it is really weird, interesting and worth paying attention to, (like, say, the Aztecs).
Declan
Posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 6:55:48
In reply to Re: Who's who » Declan, posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 1:01:11
Hi Gabbi,
>aspect is a red herring.
>People always give their carefully deducted reasons as to why they are sure
>aspect is a red herring.
I guess this can happen in many cases for all kinds of posters when assuming things, if they *write* they're clearly assuming things, like don't take medication X it will cause huge weightgain! ~ when maybe it won't for someone else..
>I don't know if there is any connection between So and Scambuster
One connection I've found interesting the pasts few days is the amount of deleted posts after the block! When 'so' got blocked there was repeated posts too and the nature (the writing contained within) was the same, more or less from what I remember, to the ones I just saw now, thats what I found anyway - the only thing that was different, was the posting name...
>they are certainly both precise
Hmmm I didn't feel quite the same personally.
>So was not a card carrying Scientologist, he was making a point..this I know.
I was going by this from what I remember a couple of months back.. It was a subject about "Don't call me creepy" because of a posting about Scientology and with respect to 'so' the post said "*I* am called "creepy" because of *my* religious beliefs.""
-------------------------------------------------
Regardless your persistent behavior intervening in conversations you deem uncivil, you have stated that you will not intervene in response to the statements above in which I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.
Curious that this religous intolerance is allowed only in regard to a particular religion that considers the pratice of psychiatry to be a religion.
Please to not publish a message board in which you selectively allow members to call members of particular religions "Creepy", or where particular religious ideas are characterized as "weird" or particular religions are accused of "brainwashing."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/528082.html-------------------------------------------------
Kind regardsNick
Posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 7:11:04
In reply to Re: Who's who » Gabbix2, posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 6:55:48
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/528082.html
Definitely putting this subject to rest now! lol
Constantly learning ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Dinah on October 20, 2005, at 7:56:27
In reply to Re: Who's who » Declan, posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 1:01:11
To be fair to Dr. Bob (who was the one who blocked the poster in question), he doesn't do it based on deduction or assumptions.
Posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 10:02:24
In reply to Re: Who's who » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on October 20, 2005, at 7:56:27
Of course, I'm sorry I should have added that!
Posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 10:04:13
In reply to Re: Who's who » Gabbix2, posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 6:55:48
I had seen the posts, and remember them.
But I also know, what I already said is true.He was making a point.
Posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 10:42:02
In reply to Re: Who's who » Nickengland, posted by Gabbix2 on October 20, 2005, at 10:04:13
An enthymeme is a syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed.
Posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 11:00:16
In reply to Enthymeme? lol, posted by Nickengland on October 20, 2005, at 10:42:02
When I start replying to my own messages in Administration I know its time to exit lol
I think I'd be right in saying we all share one truth (a fact that has been verified) - I'm replying to myself so i'm out of here :-)
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.