![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 27, 2007, at 14:16:44
In reply to junkie doctors post/ace, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 12:15:55
>How about all the posts on junkie doctors, did you just miss those or are those OK?
> ace, this is what I'm referring to....if Phillipa is blocked why wasn't the poster of this?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071213/msgs/801618.html
>I just thought this post stating "crazy" doctors .was really an overgeneralizationIf you believe there is an issue with a post, please follow the site guidelines by using the Notify the Administrators button instead of posting your comments on the boards.
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 should be directed to Admin and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 16:57:21
In reply to Re: 'The Poster' responds, posted by Jamal Spelling on December 27, 2007, at 13:36:55
Jamal... I used your post as a comparison as to why Phillipa's was blocked and yours wasn't. I could have used any number of other posts, but I had remembered the title of your post and I thought it perhaps was worthy of a block as it referred to "crack head" doctors, which seemed inflammatory to me.
I would never post to Admin to block someone since that is not my focus, but the deputies.
Also I did not ask anyone to block you and I don't usually get upset about who gets blocks unless I feel someone is being blocked for an unlear reason, as so many did in this sitution.I have nothing against you personally, as I don't know you as you stated. I did not "repeatedly ask" Dr Bob to block you either, so I wanted you to know that. Not even once did I do this, so I am confused by why you thought I repetedly asked him to block you.
Sorry for any miscommunication this has caused. My point was to imply that other posts have the same or more offensiveness than Phillipa's where she compares BP monitoring techniques. That is the same as saying that an oral temperature is not as accurate than an rectal one.
I don't think not being blocked has anything to do with leniency but with a difference of opinions between deputies or perhaps the inability to monitor each and every post for perceived "offenses".
No offense was directed at you, just at the term you used "crack heads" as being perhaps a posting offense. Believe me, I have limited knowledge of why a block is applied and don't usually care. I like when others get fired up and get a post heated especially when it is not done to offend others. We all have alot to learn here and I would be the first one to say I don't know alot about how this board functions, other than it being a forum for support and information, never as one to create tension or discriminate against others.
No personal offense taken and none impied towards you...Be well and continue to speaak the truth or some version of it.
Stargazer
Posted by Jamal Spelling on December 28, 2007, at 3:34:22
In reply to Re: 'The Poster' responds/Jamal...The Poster, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 16:57:21
Hi Stargazer. No problem, don't worry, no offense taken, etc.
Kind regards, Jamal.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week/WHY? I don't see the reason, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
> > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
>
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
>
> tecknohed> Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
>
> stargazerSomething like:
> cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
or:
> many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:21:37
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
> > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> >
> > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> >
> > tecknohed
>
> > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> >
> > stargazer
>
> Something like:
>
> > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
>
> or:
>
> > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
>
> I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
>
> Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
Lou Pilder
Posted by seldomseen on December 28, 2007, at 13:36:13
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
I guess my contention was not that an generalization was made. I agree that one was.
However, it was made about what is basically an appliance.
I am quick to agree that we are not to generalize about people as that can upset some.
But can we take a closer look at who may be upset if we generalize about a blood pressure monitor?
Am I just missing the point?
Seldom.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:47:50
In reply to Lou's response to post by Robert Hsiung-xpos? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:21:37
> > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > >
> > > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> > >
> > > tecknohed
> >
> > > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> > >
> > > stargazer
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
> >
> > or:
> >
> > > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
> >
> > I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
> >
> > Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
> When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In any reply from you to me here, could you also include in your reply taking in the past post by Ame Sans Vie (alav hashalom)
Lou Pilder
The phrase is in about the 5th paragraph starting with,[...Oh, and just one last thing...following poop-out, it seems that, ...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031015/msgs/270100.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 14:48:53
In reply to Lou's response to post by Robert Hsiung-pstprc?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:47:50
> > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > >
> > > > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> > > >
> > > > tecknohed
> > >
> > > > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> > > >
> > > > stargazer
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
> > >
> > > or:
> > >
> > > > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
> > >
> > > I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
> > When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In any reply from you to me here, could you also include in your reply taking in the past post by Ame Sans Vie (alav hashalom)
> Lou Pilder
> The phrase is in about the 5th paragraph starting with,[...Oh, and just one last thing...following poop-out, it seems that, ...]
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031015/msgs/270100.htmlMr. Hsiung,
Could you also include ain any reply to me her the following post?
Lou PIlder
The statement is about the third paragraph;
[...suicide is more...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050521/msgs/503169.html
>
Posted by AbbieNormal on December 28, 2007, at 20:29:29
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
Bob - You are being an *ss.
She is entitled to her experienced opinion.
Don't 1000's of posters offer their opinions about meds here? What the hell is the difference??
If I say Zyprexa increased my appetite, and therefore, I think it's sucky med...I'm generalizing my experience to all patients....but, that's OK?
Seriously...it's obvious when you are screwing up. This is one of those times.
Posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2007, at 0:34:23
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing ...PULLEEEEZ! » Dr. Bob, posted by AbbieNormal on December 28, 2007, at 20:29:29
Can anyone explain the difference?
If I say that such and such a drug is often helpful, that's a generalisation, right?
What's an overgeneralisation?
Something you don't agree with?
Or have I missed it?
Posted by Jamal Spelling on December 29, 2007, at 3:01:29
In reply to generalising vs over generalising, posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2007, at 0:34:23
> Can anyone explain the difference?
Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
See, it makes perfect sense!
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:01:16
In reply to Re: generalising vs over generalising » Sigismund, posted by Jamal Spelling on December 29, 2007, at 3:01:29
> > Can anyone explain the difference?
>
> Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
>
> See, it makes perfect sense!Friends,
It is written here,[...if I say...]
Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
Lou
here is the link to the post;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-malcus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:01:16
> > > Can anyone explain the difference?
> >
> > Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
> >
> > See, it makes perfect sense!
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...if I say...]
> Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
> As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
> A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
> B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
> C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
> Lou
> here is the link to the post;
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.htmlFriends,
In appraising what could or could not be an exaggereation, in particular in a mental health community, one could examine;
A. Who are the people that the statement could cause a reader to do and what could those people do after reading the statement?
B. To what degree of harm, could the generalizatiion, if it is a generization, cause?
Let us look at an historical parallel.
In Hitler's fantasy, generalization resulted in mass-murder by the use of scapegoating and propaganda directed toward groups to arrouse ill-will against those groups. The historical record of Geobbles and Stryker are filled with exaggerations and overgeneralizations. You can email me for those if you like.
Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
But what is the harm to anyone here concerning Phillipa's use of {more often than not}? Will groups of people be persecuted from her posting here her figurative ideas about a blood-pressure cuff?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 9:52:02
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-rely?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
> > > > Can anyone explain the difference?
> > >
> > > Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
> > >
> > > See, it makes perfect sense!
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...if I say...]
> > Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
> > As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
> > A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
> > B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
> > C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
> > Lou
> > here is the link to the post;
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.html
>
> Friends,
> In appraising what could or could not be an exaggereation, in particular in a mental health community, one could examine;
> A. Who are the people that the statement could cause a reader to do and what could those people do after reading the statement?
> B. To what degree of harm, could the generalizatiion, if it is a generization, cause?
> Let us look at an historical parallel.
> In Hitler's fantasy, generalization resulted in mass-murder by the use of scapegoating and propaganda directed toward groups to arrouse ill-will against those groups. The historical record of Geobbles and Stryker are filled with exaggerations and overgeneralizations. You can email me for those if you like.
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
> But what is the harm to anyone here concerning Phillipa's use of {more often than not}? Will groups of people be persecuted from her posting here her figurative ideas about a blood-pressure cuff?
> LouFriends,
I cited {Stryker} whose name is spelled correctly as;
Julius Streicher
Here is a link to a posed portrait of Julius Streicher shortly before his execution as being convicted as a Nazi war criminal.
Lou
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=99366&rendTypeId=4
Posted by Deputy Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:11:26
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-rely?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
Please do not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
You've been asked not to do this before, so I'm going to block you from posting for one week.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Kath on January 1, 2008, at 19:49:12
In reply to Blocked for a week » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:11:26
Hi Dep Dinah,
Hope it's okay to ask you this.
I'm always terrified I've broken some rule & will get blocked or something.
I'm really confused. It seems there's stuff going on that I don't even understand.
Bottom line - I'm wondering if you can say when Phillipa can post again?
Can a person who is blocked 'get in trouble' for babblemailing someone?
How does a blocked person know when they can post again? If they try to post when they think it's okay, but it's not, is their block lengthened?
I feel so badly for Phillipa. I've never known her to be anything other than a kind, caring, very generous person.
Sorry if I'm saying anything wrong.
Thx DD hugs, Kath
Posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
In reply to Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Deputy Dinah, posted by Kath on January 1, 2008, at 19:49:12
> Hi Dep Dinah,
>
> Hope it's okay to ask you this.Hi,
I thought I'd try to answer what I can, though I realize you asked Dinah. I'm sure she'll jump in when she sees this and correct anything I mis-state or leave out.> Bottom line - I'm wondering if you can say when Phillipa can post again?
Phillipa was blocked on Dec. 26. ("December 26, 2007, at 9:53:33") http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802690.html
Assuming that Dr. Bob put the block in the system roughly around the same time he posted the block message, she ought to be able to return sometime tomorrow, Jan. 2, perhaps in the afternoon. It's hard to determine the time, but the date is pretty easy if you know the block length. When I was a deputy, we couldn't see the exact expiration. I'm not aware of any changes to that since I resigned, but who knows?
>
> Can a person who is blocked 'get in trouble' for babblemailing someone?They shouldn't be able to use babblemail while blocked. I don't think the system will let them, unless something's changed. So I suppose if they set up a new user account and babblemailed from that, and admin found out about it, that might warrant some kind of admin. action. And fyi, blocked folks are supposed to be able to receive babblemails while blocked, but not send them. However, that sometimes glitches and folks don't always get their babblemails while blocked.
>
> How does a blocked person know when they can post again? If they try to post when they think it's okay, but it's not, is their block lengthened?If they try to post and they are still blocked, the system won't let them post. That's really the only way to find out if the block is expired--try to post. That's why you seem some folks post "test" messages when returning from a block. If a blocked poster posts under another name while blocked, then they usually do get their block lengthened. Otherwise, if the system allows them to post under their usual name, then the block is no longer in effect.
>
> I feel so badly for Phillipa. I've never known her to be anything other than a kind, caring, very generous person.Yes, I imagine this is really hard for her, since she shares so much of herself with the community here.
>
> Sorry if I'm saying anything wrong.I didn't see anything "wrong". It's kind of you to support Phillipa. :)
Again, hope this helps, and I'm sure Dinah will fill in anything needed.
gg
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 11:38:21
In reply to Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Deputy Dinah, posted by Kath on January 1, 2008, at 19:49:12
Kath I'm here and glad to see you all thank-you gg for answering Kath I didn't know either. Thought I'd try and it worked. Love Phillipa
Posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:56:21
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
phillipa,
Many here are awaiting your return, hope you are OK and will rejoin us soon. Boy a week seems like a long time without your name around. You were missed by many here, especially since many of us questioned why you were even blocked to begin with. As a result of your block, some others were also blocked, supporting you. So you have friends here, for sure.
All I want you to know is that no matter how many people do not appreciate your presence here, you have a right to be here as much as anyone else. The world is full of many people that others cannot tolerate for one reason or another. It is not their right to try and limit your participation here. Who made them right and you wrong? Tolerance of others is what being human, or rather humane, is all about. We all are not the same and others do not have the right to try and restrict your participation by intimidation and criticism. I think you are picked on because of your frequency in posting and being off topic on some posts, but is that a good enough reason to ostracize you?
Being put in a mold that someone else creates is not allowing you to exercise your freedom here either. This site, as far as I know,is for everyone struggling with their own demons and deficiencies, and yours have every right to be here too. Those that object to your posts, should just skip over them. I bet most that criticize your posts also read them. It would be hard not to read them even if you say you don't find any value in them. They can be very interesting.
I find many posters who I skip over and that is the best way to handle that. Style and content is important for me. Time is also a consideration so every post is impossible to read unless this is your full time job. Not to put you down if it is, but you know what I mean.
Looking forward to your return and comments on your days in the slammer or wherever you spent your "time".
stargazer
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 12:03:45
In reply to Phillipa, We are awaiting your return...today?, posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:56:21
Thanks stargazer2 was sick the whole time still am but have to keep the little business going 29 out now but have to leave. You made a very good point I was under the impression that Dr. Bob or the deputies had once said skip the posts you don't want to read. Oh I do that too especially ones for males as its an invasion of their privacy to me. Thanks for welcoming me back. I've missed a lot of you a whole bunch!!!!!!! Love Phillipa or Jan
Posted by Dinah on January 2, 2008, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
And you're absolutely right, of course.
I'm sorry, Kath, that I didn't get to this. I'm trying to get some work out while also spending family time.
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:02:35
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:05:58
In reply to Re: Phillipa, We are awaiting your return...today? » stargazer2, posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 12:03:45
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:06:52
In reply to Thanks gg, posted by Dinah on January 2, 2008, at 22:30:58
That's ok Dinah. I really appreciate the work you Deputies do! Have no idea how you find the time!
luv & hugs, Kath
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 8:58:38
In reply to Blocked for a week » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:11:26
Dinah,
In your post to me here, that you write to please not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, I am unsure as to the following and I am requesting that you post here replies to me here to the following.
A. Who are those that you are referring to in my post in question here as {others}?
B. What part of my post is either putting down and/or accusing them?
C. How does that part either put down those others or accuse those others?
D. You also write that I have been asked not to do {this} before. I am unsure as to what the {this} is that you have asked me not to do before. If you could post here what the {this} is, then I could respond accordingly.
E. other aspects that could arrise from any reply from you to me concerning my requests to you.
If you could post your reply to me here for the identification and clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly per the policy here that it is fine to discuss the actions we take, rationales and such.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.