![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 18:12:48
In reply to Re: blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 17:40:01
> > when someone makes a generalization, usually in my opionion, out of frustration and anger, can we not respond to them as a community to help them, simply by pointing out their statements are generalizations and perhaps ask them to share their experiences? ... this route, to me, would be more productive than blocking
> I agree, it would be best to prevent blocks.**but not always easy...
>
> > And in this kind of case, to me it is clearly no judgment or disparagement of the poster, just a technical violation, such as a speeding ticket would be.**no judgement????oh I FEEL judged when I was blocked...
I was bad. So I was blocked. Bad me.Punished. I said f*rt one time :-( BLOCKED. Hurt, hurt, hurt, cuz it was so unexpected. Tried to post, but couldn't, didn't know why????felt ashamed when I realized I was blocked.
Its not like a speeding ticket, that just a fine...
Here you are made to feel shame and are isolated and muffled from speaking. Only place is chat, IF there's someone there. Or whats worse, is when you read the post of a hurting friend and wanto respond to and can't :-(> In all cases, actually...
>
> Bob:-(
M
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2007, at 21:35:36
In reply to Re: blocking f*cking DOES hurt me, posted by muffled on July 8, 2007, at 18:12:48
holding you in my heart tonight......xoxoxo faye
Posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 7:18:20
In reply to Re: false analogy » zeugma, posted by confuzyq on July 8, 2007, at 18:01:50
...that was my own bad analogy. :-( I think the only part of it that Bob was commenting on was the "...no judgment or disparagement of the poster" part (claiming that reprimands never are). >>
I am sorry for the critique of the analogy. You were trying to figure out how a system that appears to make no sense can be rationalized. Dr. Bob should know better, that his complex civility rules and system of enforcing 'good behavior' are damned well judgmental, and that when he says we are not 'sensitive to the feelings of others,' that that itself is a hurtful thing to say. He is an idiot.
We are all trying to be honest and civil here, and we have a doctor playing games in our midst.
-z
Posted by muffled on July 9, 2007, at 9:27:13
In reply to analogies and games » confuzyq, posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 7:18:20
> ...that was my own bad analogy. :-( I think the only part of it that Bob was commenting on was the "...no judgment or disparagement of the poster" part (claiming that reprimands never are). >>
>
> I am sorry for the critique of the analogy. You were trying to figure out how a system that appears to make no sense can be rationalized. Dr. Bob should know better, that his complex civility rules and system of enforcing 'good behavior' are damned well judgmental, and that when he says we are not 'sensitive to the feelings of others,' that that itself is a hurtful thing to say. He is an idiot.
>
> We are all trying to be honest and civil here, and we have a doctor playing games in our midst.
>
>
> -z**Thanks Zeugma. Hope you doing OK.
I didn't have a prob w/analogy so much as Bobs response to it. I dunno how to have him understand the wrongness.
I think we all getting pissed w/Bob. Ijust dunno what to make of all this.
I am having dejavu over this.
:(
Take care Z.
M
Posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 10:22:30
In reply to Re: analogies and games » zeugma, posted by muffled on July 9, 2007, at 9:27:13
>
> **Thanks Zeugma. Hope you doing OK.
> I didn't have a prob w/analogy so much as Bobs response to it. I dunno how to have him understand the wrongness.
> I think we all getting pissed w/Bob. Ijust dunno what to make of all this.
> I am having dejavu over this.
> :(
> Take care Z.
> M
>
> >>Thanks Muffled. It wasn't the analogy that upset me, but Bob's response.
Speed limits and the like are only needed because laws, and hence offenses, exist. And those laws are meant to 'support' us ( you know, I don't want people to ignore the red light when I'm crossing the street!). But he has stated plainly that he and the Deps are not here to provide "support." WTF??? That is like (to keep going with this interesting analogy) getting run over and waving frantically for cops for help, only to have them blow you off by saying, "Keep in mind, our role is not to provide support."
And off they go in search of examples of 'incivility.'Keep well, Muffled-
-z
Posted by Deputy Racer on July 9, 2007, at 13:21:50
In reply to analogies and games » confuzyq, posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 7:18:20
> He is an idiot.
>
> We are all trying to be honest and civil here, and we have a doctor playing games in our midst.
>
>The idea here is not to post anything which could lead others to feel accused or put down. Dr Bob is a little more lenient about criticisms of himself, but there are still limits to that leniency. I notice you just got off a block, so I'm going to block you, but I'm going to leave it to Dr Bob to set the length of that block.
If there are any questions regarding civility guidelines on this site, please read the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Any follow ups to this issue should themselves be civil. Since this is the Administration board, there is no need to redirect your replies.
Dr Bob, as always has ultimate authority on this site, and may choose to revise or reverse any deputy actions.
Deputy Racer
Posted by zazenducke on July 9, 2007, at 13:39:51
In reply to Blocked » zeugma, posted by Deputy Racer on July 9, 2007, at 13:21:50
There are few nudities so objectionable as the naked truth... A Repplier
> >
>
> The idea here is not to post anything which could lead others to feel accused or put down. Dr Bob is a little more lenient about criticisms of himself, but there are still limits to that leniency. I notice you just got off a block, so I'm going to block you, but I'm going to leave it to Dr Bob to set the length of that block.
>
> If there are any questions regarding civility guidelines on this site, please read the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Any follow ups to this issue should themselves be civil. Since this is the Administration board, there is no need to redirect your replies.
>
> Dr Bob, as always has ultimate authority on this site, and may choose to revise or reverse any deputy actions.
>
> Deputy Racer
Posted by zazenducke on July 9, 2007, at 14:35:00
In reply to Re: blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 17:40:01
> > when someone makes a generalization, usually in my opionion, out of frustration and anger, can we not respond to them as a community to help them, simply by pointing out their statements are generalizations and perhaps ask them to share their experiences? ... this route, to me, would be more productive than blocking
> >
> > Justherself54
>
> I agree, it would be best to prevent blocks.
>
> > And in this kind of case, to me it is clearly no judgment or disparagement of the poster, just a technical violation, such as a speeding ticket would be.
> >
> > confuzyq
>
> In all cases, actually...
>Bob this statement is a generalization, would you care to share your experiences? All sharing should of course be civil.
> Bob
Posted by zazenducke on July 9, 2007, at 16:33:43
In reply to analogies and games » confuzyq, posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 7:18:20
I think the problem is psychological as opposed to intellectual.
> He is an >
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by henrietta on July 9, 2007, at 19:15:00
In reply to narcissism vs idiocy » zeugma, posted by zazenducke on July 9, 2007, at 16:33:43
Thin ice, but I'm skating with you in spirit.
hen
Posted by fayeroe on July 9, 2007, at 19:38:04
In reply to Re: narcissism vs idiocy » zazenducke, posted by henrietta on July 9, 2007, at 19:15:00
Posted by Sigismund on July 9, 2007, at 20:21:13
In reply to analogies and games » confuzyq, posted by zeugma on July 9, 2007, at 7:18:20
Narcissism and cynicism are the driving forces in public life.
Zeugma didn't last long.
How long will his block be?
Where is that formula?
Posted by henrietta on July 10, 2007, at 12:16:14
In reply to Re: narcissism vs idiocy Hen....:-) (nm) » henrietta, posted by fayeroe on July 9, 2007, at 19:38:04
Thanks for the smile!
hen
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 14:37:32
In reply to Blocked » zeugma, posted by Deputy Racer on July 9, 2007, at 13:21:50
> I'm going to leave it to Dr Bob to set the length of that block.
Well, for now, we're still using the current system, and according to that:
previous block: 30 weeks
period of time since previous block: 32 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 32 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 3 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 30 - 3 = 27 weeks.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 14:37:44
In reply to Re: narcissism vs idiocy » zazenducke, posted by henrietta on July 9, 2007, at 19:15:00
> I think the problem is psychological as opposed to intellectual.
>
> zazenduckePlease don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel put down.
According to the current system:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 9 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 9 weeks, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that takes you back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
> Thin ice, but I'm skating with you in spirit.
>
> henriettaIn your case:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 1 week
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 1 week, divide by 10, and round, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 1 - 0 = 1 week. And if we triple that, that's 3 weeks.
But please don't take these personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by tofuemmy on July 10, 2007, at 18:25:39
In reply to Re: the length » zeugma, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2007, at 14:37:32
Bob - I think that the civility rules, blocks, and the formula are all innately provocative. So, IMO if someone in uncivil towards you, the answer to the question of whether it was provoked should always be YES.
em
Posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2007, at 19:44:51
In reply to Re: the length » Dr. Bob, posted by tofuemmy on July 10, 2007, at 18:25:39
>I think that the civility rules, blocks, and the formula are all innately provocative.
Well yes, and I assume that's the point.
Here we are in the big house and how do we react?
Posted by zazenducke on July 11, 2007, at 12:01:06
In reply to Blocked » zeugma, posted by Deputy Racer on July 9, 2007, at 13:21:50
> Dr Bob, as always has ultimate authority on this site,
Posted by tofuemmy on July 11, 2007, at 17:17:36
In reply to The process » tofuemmy, posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2007, at 19:44:51
I'm actually not any part of a "we" here. I react when personally motivated. It's a pretty rare occurance. Mostly I nap. em
Posted by tofuemmy on July 11, 2007, at 17:29:00
In reply to I do not accept Dr Bob as ultimate authority, posted by zazenducke on July 11, 2007, at 12:01:06
Don't waste a lot of energy on trying to change Babble. For every 1,000 requests...he moves a small percentage of a millimeter. Seriously - this site will just age you.
Enjoy the parts you can, insert a b*itch or two...and then just accept that it's Bob playground. He changes at his own infinitesimal pace.
em
Posted by fayeroe on July 12, 2007, at 10:50:46
In reply to The process » tofuemmy, posted by Sigismund on July 10, 2007, at 19:44:51
> >I think that the civility rules, blocks, and the formula are all innately provocative.
>
> Well yes, and I assume that's the point.
>
> Here we are in the big house and how do we react?
Most people use statistics the way a drunkard uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination.
—Mark TwainThose who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason.
—James Randi
…
Posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 18:31:49
In reply to Re: The process » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on July 12, 2007, at 10:50:46
Well its Dr. Bob's site, ultimately he can do whatever he wants.
I just find it disturbing that certain posts are not allowed under the assumption that they are distructive to people's healing processes.
Who are we to say we know the ultimate path of healing that an individual might take?
Who are we to say that an individual will only heal on prozac, and that under such assumptions one is granted the licence to filter all information to the contrary?
For the most part, my healing began when certain medications were discontinued.
To tell people about my journey is not really anti-med, its just another story that people may or may not need to consider.
However, should GSK, Pfizer, or Lilly be lurking in the background, and wishing to keep me quiet, I will quickly settle for $5000 American. You can reach me at [xxx].
Surely you will make that back in prescriptions once the story of my painfull plight with SSRI's is silenced.
Linkadge
Posted by confuzyq on July 13, 2007, at 5:46:40
In reply to Re: The process, posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 18:31:49
Hi Linkadge,
I've always liked you and your posts a lot by the way. Yours are some of the first I always click on. I just wanted to say that it seems to me that people are in fact very free here to report their own med experiences exactly as they were, good bad or neutral; and also to say that they know many other people have had the same experience. But I really don't understand why it is a problem to avoid the part about speaking in absolutes -- like stating that everyone knows permanent sexual impairment *will* result (I admit I still haven't read the main board thread that this admin thread sprang from). Lurkers, newbies, etc. will not understand that they should read this, that and the other thing between the lines when they see that, and I'm assuming you don't really think that literally everyone who has ever been on an SSRI long term has suffered this effect? I was on zoloft for years straight and didn't...
> Well its Dr. Bob's site, ultimately he can do whatever he wants.
>
> I just find it disturbing that certain posts are not allowed under the assumption that they are distructive to people's healing processes.
>
> Who are we to say we know the ultimate path of healing that an individual might take?
>
> Who are we to say that an individual will only heal on prozac, and that under such assumptions one is granted the licence to filter all information to the contrary?
>
> For the most part, my healing began when certain medications were discontinued.
>
> To tell people about my journey is not really anti-med, its just another story that people may or may not need to consider.
>
> However, should GSK, Pfizer, or Lilly be lurking in the background, and wishing to keep me quiet, I will quickly settle for $5000 American. You can reach me at [xxx].
>
> Surely you will make that back in prescriptions once the story of my painfull plight with SSRI's is silenced.
>
> Linkadge
>
Posted by confuzyq on July 13, 2007, at 5:59:52
In reply to Re: The process, posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 18:31:49
...I just saw your thread below, sorry I should have read the thread itself, I referred to you having said "everybody" and I guess that was incorrect.
Posted by linkadge on July 13, 2007, at 16:28:18
In reply to Re: The process » linkadge, posted by confuzyq on July 13, 2007, at 5:59:52
Well thats the thing. I might even agree with the block if it was a generalization, but it wasn't really (I don't personally think).
And like you say, who is going to go on the world wide web (a place with undoubtedly millions of opinions) and take for fact something that Joe Shmoe writes on some website?
And if you *were* the kind of person who is that susceptable, then it is just as much a crime to subject such persons to an overinflated
view picture of antidepressant efficacy. Because then, you are using their gullability to overide a necessary honest and straightforward presentation of the facts regarding a drug's effects.Its just like Healy, I suppose. Its ok to have an opinion, just not so long as it happens to clash with those who happen to be in a position of greater authority.
However, I try to separate the facts from the opinions.
For instance it is a *fact* that more than half of all published clinical trials for antidepressant drugs fail to show that they are more efficatious than placebo.
It is my *opinion* that any drug which displays such a hazy record of sucess should be continually questioned and reassesed in terms of efficacy (and safety for that matter).
Linkadge
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.