![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 21:01:32
In reply to Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 20:57:51
OR,
I had no way of knowing that you were transferring someone else's post from another board.
But thanks for the clarification, for I now know that it is not you that wrote the defamation towards me.
Best reards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 14, 2003, at 21:07:08
In reply to Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 20:57:51
>
> I am growing disillusioned with these boards.Oh, never say so, Oddipus! There is much good here, yourself included. :)
(Although I admit to having times when I feel hurled back to middle school. Then I know it's time to take a break. I can come back feeling supportive again.)
Posted by Dinah on April 14, 2003, at 21:07:54
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000, posted by Dinah on April 14, 2003, at 21:07:08
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 21:09:03
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2003, at 21:01:32
OR,
I thought that you were in actuallity, Tina, as the post in question is signed. Some people have cute names like yours and sign their real name. What was also perplexing is that the other post was signed by coral, so I thought that someone was using OddipusRex as a dodge to enter different posts under differant names. But you cleared that up.
Thanks also for the post on {scapegoating}.
Lou
Posted by tina on April 17, 2003, at 9:45:36
In reply to Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » Lou Pilder, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 20:57:51
i would appreciate it if you post directly to me if you find anything in my posts offensive.
thanks
tina
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 17, 2003, at 20:44:26
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » OddipusRex, posted by tina on April 17, 2003, at 9:45:36
Tina I thought your post I quoted above was likely to cause Lou pain.
> i would appreciate it if you post directly to me if you find anything in my posts offensive.
> thanks
> tina
Posted by shar on April 17, 2003, at 23:07:04
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » tina, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 17, 2003, at 20:44:26
> Tina I thought your post I quoted above was likely to cause Lou pain.
>.......so....how thoughtful of you to bring it to Lou's attention?
S
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 8:01:30
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » Oddipus Rex, posted by shar on April 17, 2003, at 23:07:04
> > Tina I thought your post I quoted above was likely to cause Lou pain.
> >
>
> .......so....how thoughtful of you to bring it to Lou's attention?
>
> S
>
That makes me feel put down . And it seems sarcastic. I think it was thoughtful to ask for your intervention. I was bringing it to your attention hopefully before Lou read it.I was posting directly to Tina as she requested.
Posted by tina on April 18, 2003, at 14:55:36
In reply to Re: Above was posted by Tina on PB2000 » tina, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 17, 2003, at 20:44:26
thank you for respecting my request Rex and I shall refrain from reading certain posts in the future since I seem to lose control when it comes to Lou.
peace
tina
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 16:35:45
In reply to Attention Dr Bob, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 8:01:30
> > > Tina I thought your post I quoted above was likely to cause Lou pain.
> > >
> >
> > .......so....how thoughtful of you to bring it to Lou's attention?
> >
> > S
> >
> That makes me feel put down . And it seems sarcastic. I think it was thoughtful to ask for your intervention. I was bringing it to your attention hopefully before Lou read it.
........But why don't I just consider it a simple request for clarification. And just because it seemed sarcastic to me(as did the post about evil on PB2000) I probably should have just ignored it instead of commenting. It could be worse. I could be on Shar's "Don't read Don't reply" list :)
Posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 20:58:15
In reply to Re: Attention Dr Bob Part 2, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 16:35:45
> ........But why don't I just consider it a simple request for clarification.
`````Yep, that would be a good approach.
>And just because it seemed sarcastic to me(as did the post about evil on PB2000) I probably should have just ignored it instead of commenting.
```````Could be.
>It could be worse. I could be on Shar's "Don't read Don't reply" list :)
````````Oh, dear, that seemed sarcastic. Now MY feelings are hurt. Real bad, too.Shar
Posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 21:24:44
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 14, 2003, at 18:46:05
It is beyond my generally limited understanding that printing out a statement that one thinks might be hurtful to another is positive/supportive/civil/friendly/etc. in any way.
I mean putting an actual copy of the text over here, as opposed to, say, just putting in the url of the post, or just referring to PB 2000 posts in general and asking for an admin review of them.
So, not too put too fine a point on things, I really do wonder if somebody would think this is a thoughtful thing to do, since the person that would be hurt by it would be much more likely to see it by printing it again on the Admin board.
This is pretty much rhetorical, come to think of it. No response required.
Shar
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 21:28:48
In reply to But, seriously, now..., posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 21:24:44
OK
> It is beyond my generally limited understanding
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 18, 2003, at 21:30:37
In reply to Re: Attention Dr Bob Part 2 » Oddipus Rex, posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 20:58:15
Posted by wendy b. on April 18, 2003, at 23:05:18
In reply to But, seriously, now..., posted by shar on April 18, 2003, at 21:24:44
> I mean putting an actual copy of the text over here, as opposed to, say, just putting in the url of the post, or just referring to PB 2000 posts in general and asking for an admin review of them.
Similarly, I thought the moving of a post of mine from the 2001 board over here to Admin last week was not kind:____
(quote from that thread) I'm sorry for any perveived wrongs I've done. And I do try to stay out of the fray, that's why I posted over on PB 2001. I know we're warned that text can be and often is moved to other boards, but in this case, if I had wanted others IN GENERAL to reply, I would have put it on Admin. I had hoped the 2001 people could have had a "private" discussion about it. Or what is the purpose of the board's existence? Not being "difficult," it's an honest question.' (end of quote)
________As you say, it's kind of rhetorical, at this point. Just noting my feelings on this, no comments necessary...
Best wishes,
Wendy
Posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:25:04
In reply to Re: But, seriously, now... » shar, posted by wendy b. on April 18, 2003, at 23:05:18
> ____
>
> (quote from that thread) I'm sorry for any perveived wrongs I've done. And I do try to stay out of the fray, that's why I posted over on PB 2001. I know we're warned that text can be and often is moved to other boards, but in this case, if I had wanted others IN GENERAL to reply, I would have put it on Admin. I had hoped the 2001 people could have had a "private" discussion about it. Or what is the purpose of the board's existence? Not being "difficult," it's an honest question.' (end of quote)
> ________
I don't think it's possible for a public board to be "private". If someone wants to discuss the topic it's necessary to move it to a board where it is possible to post a reply. I think if people post at one of the restricted boards they should be aware that it IS part of PB and people WILL read and respond if they care too. And those responses will have to be posted on another board. Copying the posts with the reply is just a timesaver and makes it clearer what the conversation is about. I think it would be a mistake to assume that someone is less likely to read a board because it is restricted. Reading is not restricted.I don't think the purpose of the restricted boards was to have a place to talk about people who can't post there. So what is the purpose of the restricted boards? I'm not being difficult either, I would really like to know.
I don't think it's permissable to ask for no one to post ABOUT something we post, just to request that people not direct posts to a particular individual.
Posted by shar on April 19, 2003, at 13:33:08
In reply to Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:25:04
> I don't think it's possible for a public board to be "private".
....I agree. In general, though, a year-defined board is visited less than PB or PSB, thus effectively making it less public. And, I believe that everybody understands that everyone can read everything.
>If someone wants to discuss the topic it's necessary to move it to a board where it is possible to post a reply.
....It's not necessary to move the post, it's necessary to refer to it. Moving it (by, for example, cutting and pasting) is just one way of many to refer to it.
>I think if people post at one of the restricted boards they should be aware that it IS part of PB and people WILL read and respond if they care too.
....I think people posting at the year-defined boards already understand that those are part of PB, and, in fact, other posters have in the past referred to those posts on PSB...so it's not a secret.
>Copying the posts with the reply is just a timesaver and makes it clearer what the conversation is about.
....Most often it seems that people respond to posters, not topics. For example, if a poster writes on PB 2000 that they are distressed, responses may show up on PSB saying "I'm sorry you are distressed" or something along those lines. If it is the topic of interest, then often a poster will say "I saw the post on PB 2000 about job hunting and...." and then add their own thoughts. And everybody knows that they can go to PB 2000 if they want to read the original post.
>I think it would be a mistake to assume that someone is less likely to read a board because it is restricted. Reading is not restricted.
....I think that most people read a subset of boards at the Babbles. I don't read every board, I don't have time to do that. So, I think it is very likely that, even though all boards can be read by all posters, that they are not. I don't know about others, but it is extremely rare for me to visit the 2001 board. If there is a 2001 poster I want to post to, I just do it on PSB. I do have a sense that the year-defined boards are mainly for those folks to be able to talk with others where there is a shared history of one sort or another, and that's their space.
> I don't think the purpose of the restricted boards was to have a place to talk about people who can't post there. So what is the purpose of the restricted boards?....A search of the archives will provide you with more information than you ever wanted to know about the purpose of the year-defined boards. There was a pretty big, long discussion about their creation.
> I don't think it's permissable to ask for no one to post ABOUT something we post, just to request that people not direct posts to a particular individual.
....That's my understanding, too. As long as it all stays civil. And, ideally, posts from other boards wouldn't be used against the poster. A question of civility raised at the admin board, for example, is often just the url of the post with a request that Dr. Bob or someone take a look at it. That way there isn't any impression of finger-pointing, etc.
....Shar
Posted by mair on April 20, 2003, at 21:22:15
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by shar on April 19, 2003, at 13:33:08
>" A question of civility raised at the admin board, for example, is often just the url of the post with a request that Dr. Bob or someone take a look at it. That way there isn't any impression of finger-pointing, etc."
Yes, and you could also just email Bob. Sometimes publicly discussing someone else's incivility accomplishes very little other than to fan fires needlessly.Mair
Posted by stjames on May 1, 2003, at 21:54:29
In reply to Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by Oddipus Rex on April 19, 2003, at 4:25:04
So what is the purpose of the restricted boards? I'm not being difficult either, I would really like to know.
I'll bite, as I am on old timer.
1) no one asks, "How do I get off Effexor" ?
2) for that matter, the same questions never come
up again.
3) Fewer questions, more friendly chats
4) Advice from people I know, as I have read 2-3 years of their posts.
5) No folks who are going to bore me, save me,
ask that every word be defined, correct my spelling, get huffy cause I am blunt, don't mind
a good argument of facts and logic & can agrue and disagree w/o it being a fight.
Posted by Dinah on May 2, 2003, at 9:59:58
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by stjames on May 1, 2003, at 21:54:29
Hey, St James. I enjoy your posts, and I want to convey my actual tone here, although it's difficult in print. It's more a chuckle than a shout, how's that?
Are you saying that in addition to being able to chat with old friends about things that would only be of interest to you all, the other main advantage of those boards is so that you don't have to deal with the rest of us? Well, I do often enjoy your bluntness. And that certainly is blunt. :)
But St. James, it appears to me in my admittedly cursory readings of the boards you post most often to, that you usually do mingle with the ordinary posters. And rarely retreat to the 2000 board. Might I assume that while you enjoy the company of those you first came to the board with, you also find the rest of us enjoyable to converse with?
Posted by stjames on May 2, 2003, at 11:15:24
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards? » stjames, posted by Dinah on May 2, 2003, at 9:59:58
> But St. James, it appears to me in my admittedly cursory readings of the boards you post most often to, that you usually do mingle with the ordinary posters. And rarely retreat to the 2000 board. Might I assume that while you enjoy the company of those you first came to the board with, you also find the rest of us enjoyable to converse with?
I totally agree.
james
Posted by Dinah on May 2, 2003, at 20:09:20
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by stjames on May 2, 2003, at 11:15:24
I figured that was what you meant, James. :)
You know, I am rather fond of that endless Effexor withdrawal thread. Not only does it bring new names to the board, which is always invigorating, but there's a lovely sort of grace to that thread. I know there are many very knowledgeable people on the meds board who know a lot about synapses and down regulation and a lot of things that twist my mind in knots (good thing I didn't follow my dream of being a genetic engineer). And that's wonderful. You can absorb so much on that board and learn of so many possibilities. But on that thread, people come here hurting and looking for answers and then are able to share their experiences with others, give comfort, and pass on the knowledge they learned here. I know much of it can be found in the archives, but isn't there something satisfying about the giving and receiving on that thread? Not to mention all the wonder when people find out they aren't alone in what they feel and they aren't just imagining it, no matter what their doctors say. I may not be explaining it at all well. I just know I'm fond of that thread.
Which is apropos of nothing, I suppose. It was just meandering around my brain today.
Posted by stjames on May 3, 2003, at 20:13:47
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards? » stjames, posted by Dinah on May 2, 2003, at 20:09:20
> I figured that was what you meant, James. :)
>
> You know, I am rather fond of that endless Effexor withdrawal thread. Not only does it bring new names to the board, which is always invigorating, but there's a lovely sort of grace to that thread. I know there are many very knowledgeable people on the meds board who know a lot about synapses and down regulation and a lot of things that twist my mind in knots (good thing I didn't follow my dream of being a genetic engineer). And that's wonderful. You can absorb so much on that board and learn of so many possibilities. But on that thread, people come here hurting and looking for answers and then are able to share their experiences with others, give comfort, and pass on the knowledge they learned here. I know much of it can be found in the archives, but isn't there something satisfying about the giving and receiving on that thread? Not to mention all the wonder when people find out they aren't alone in what they feel and they aren't just imagining it, no matter what their doctors say. I may not be explaining it at all well. I just know I'm fond of that thread.
>
> Which is apropos of nothing, I suppose. It was just meandering around my brain today.I will agree, with conditions. 3 years with the same questions tends to drive away to people with the good answers & I think tends to stifle discussion. A whole lot of ideas are discussed
based on 10-20 years old, now disproven theories of
neurotransmittion. It seems to me there are few
long term mental illness survivors here. I stay for whatever reason, but I suspect the pros go else where. I had hopes that 2000 would offer
a place to discuss something more advanced, based on current research but the people who did this in the past are no longer here.I wrote a whole section on Effexor, answering all the questions but it seems to do no good. I get tired are countering the "Effexor will kill you " type of posts.
Posted by Dinah on May 4, 2003, at 0:20:16
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards?, posted by stjames on May 3, 2003, at 20:13:47
Yeah, I miss those posters too. I know we still have a lot of knowledgeable posters who can talk brain chemistry with the best (or at least I think so, since I can't). But that doesn't mean the ones who left aren't missed.
Posted by stjames on May 7, 2003, at 1:06:43
In reply to Re: Purpose of restricted boards? » stjames, posted by Dinah on May 4, 2003, at 0:20:16
> Yeah, I miss those posters too. I know we still have a lot of knowledgeable posters who can talk brain chemistry with the best (or at least I think so, since I can't). But that doesn't mean the ones who left aren't missed.
>
>
Many can talk, but the truth is even the experts
with far more knowlage are still very much in the dark. There are no cures, yet. all models for mental illness are flawed, so fixing on the neurology
excessivly doesn't really give better Dx and treatment, after a certain point. The right pill
is often decided on by good old trial and error.
It is true the SE's offten dictate this approach
as it is impossible to predict how bad they will be.So I guess I miss the folks with the longer view.
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.