![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:51:35
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 15:18:00
> Posting information about one's adverse reaction in another social setting, albeit an on-line setting similar to this one, appears consistent with the purpose of this page which is for "general discussion and support."
Viewing forums as such, then yes, posting about a social experience would lead one to post about it on a social board. And as the originator of the thread posted here in order to pass on what she found humorous, it was indeed appropriate to post here. It likely is my concern that leads this to an administrative issue, and thus, I have posted this on the admin board.
I am concerned that some who post on both boards, including me, may feel hurt or offended if a board they post on is mentioned by name and is criticized. Would such a post be considered civil?
>
> I support the style of on-line support and educational socialization where operators of experimental on-line forums adhere to requirements that they record reports of adverse reactions.I'm sorry, I do not understand your use of the phrase "experimental on-line forums". And the accompanying statement about how they must adhere to requirements of adverse reaction reporting sounds like something that would come from an IRB, which would have nothing to do with the board mentioned in the thread began by Tofuemmy. Although as an aside, this aspect of your post is ringing a vague bell in my mind that makes me wonder about your posting name....
>Unless there are legal liabilities involved, I don't see the merit in disallowing supportive educational posts about a possible course of action in cases where a clinician has been named in relation to a hurtful circumstance.
A similar situation could be when a client has a complaint about his/her therapist. One frequently sees those kind of posts on the Psychology board. It is the convention of that board not to name the clinician involved. Imagine if you were a client of that clincian as well. How might you feel if you learned that your trusted T was involved in an unethical relationship with another client via someone else's post?
It's one thing to report and process your own reactions to your experience on another board and to give and receive support about the same. But must that board be named?
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:44:17
In reply to Re: Different boards » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 15:51:35
>
> It's one thing to report and process your own reactions to your experience on another board and to give and receive support about the same. But must that board be named?
>
> gg
>
Would you suggest that a prohibition against mentioning names or brands should be limited to medical personnel and on-line discussion boards, or should it extend to pharmaceuticals, other medical products and all Web sites? Will people feel hurt if a medicine they use is mentioned by name and criticized? Are we to avoid criticizing the content of specific drug advertising?In reading your several citations of my postings, I don't fully understand your interest in my responses. I offered what seemed to be normal consideration of the provinence of what turns out to be a parody published on the Internet.
Discussing provinence of any idea seems educational, and supportive if others have expressed a similar interest. The scope of the provinence of the parodistic construct includes its origins and its originators.
If someone felt hurt by a parody, it seems to me supportive to inform them of remedies for their injury. Since I was not the one to introduce what you characterize as a violation of a convention about naming specific therapists, perhaps it would help your argument to cite the actual introduction of the name or Website you want excluded.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 17:33:12
In reply to Re: Different boards » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 16:44:17
It's the somewhat legalese tone to your language, since language is what you wish to discuss. That's what's triggering my association about your name. It reminds me of a former poster who came and went rather quickly, and who also mistakenly assumed that this and the other board are overseen by IRB's.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 18:26:07
In reply to That's it! » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 17:33:12
> It's the somewhat legalese tone to your language, since language is what you wish to discuss. That's what's triggering my association about your name. It reminds me of a former poster who came and went rather quickly, and who also mistakenly assumed that this and the other board are overseen by IRB's.
>
> gg
Are you offering a legal opinion of the obligations of those who operate on-line message boards?If you know more about it than I represented in my suggestion to Larry that clinicians operating experimental programs often have reporting requirements, perhaps you could advise Larry of your opinion on what might or might not be his best recourse. In my posting, however, I offered a caviat that I am not prepared to present a legal conclusion beyond suggesting there are avenues for recourse. I really don't understand why you are paying that much attention to my posts.
For my part, I was offering the best support I could based on what came to mind for me at that moment. I passed a test to qualify to post here in which I recognized advise might not be accurate. Perhaps you, as I do, feel triggered to make contributions of uncertain accuracy based on momentary subjective impressions of what you read in a particular discussion.
And again, just on my part, I wasn't necessarily polling this site as to what opinions people hold on the legal status of what might or might not be considered research by pioneers in a new technology. I advised Larry, and any readers who might vicariously identify with him, based on what I might do, that if a clinical provider offends me, complaining to the offending clinician is seldom the last available venue.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 18:53:15
In reply to Re: That's it!, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 18:26:07
Um, as far as paying so much attention to your posts, well, I thought we were having a dialog, which usually involves posting back and forth. My own opinions as to the April Fool's joke and the adminstration of another board have been addressed on the site I believe to be best suited for that purpose, which is why I did not post them to the thread in question.
It is my belief, and one which I hope Dr. Bob will comment on, that concerns about a site's administration belong on that individual site in order to prevent cross-site bashing.
On another note, ever try to whisper in the ear of a whirling dervish? I would imagine all that dodging and weaving would get tiring after awhile.
ciao
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 3, 2005, at 20:47:47
In reply to Re: That's it!, posted by used2b on April 3, 2005, at 18:26:07
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 9:34:57
In reply to Re: That's it! : P (nm) » used2b, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 3, 2005, at 20:47:47
My sensors are detecting a troll.
Posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 11:56:00
In reply to Danger, Will Robinson! » Gabbi-x-2, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 9:34:57
> My sensors are detecting a troll.
I fail to see how this is either supportive or educational. It doesn't even seem on the topic of administering these sites.
I seem to have forgotten ... what is the value of disparaging people?
For the record, my privacy was assured when I registered for this site, and this effort to associate me with somebody named Will Robinson is unfounded.
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 12:10:49
In reply to Re: Danger, Will Robinson!, posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 11:56:00
I do beg your pardon. You just have the same verbal skills. I get people mixed up all the time.
'bye now.
Posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 12:58:30
In reply to Re: Danger, Will Robinson! » used2b, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 12:10:49
> I do beg your pardon. You just have the same verbal skills. I get people mixed up all the time.
If so, it might improve others' confidence in your information if you do not suggest who people are, or what their motives might be, unless you have accurate information.
Whomever you think I resemble, we probably also have some differences in our rhetorical styles.
Posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 13:14:20
In reply to Re: Danger, » partlycloudy, posted by used2b on April 4, 2005, at 12:58:30
Posted by Spoc on April 4, 2005, at 13:27:51
In reply to Re: That's it! » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 18:53:15
I only lurked for a few weeks since last July, but think I may have come across what is thought to be possible here. I had thought in that instance, the person had in their opinion been offering a different view and what they saw as empowerment; but that it had turned out to have few supporters or takers after all.
At the moment I'm not recalling that they had been uncivil, or had seemed to be trying to upset people as an end in itself... I perceived that it had just turned out that there apparently wasn't much of a "market" for that person's version of support, and their suggestions, after all.
But due to my "spotty attendance" I could be thinking of something different.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 9:32:00
In reply to Re: That's it! » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 3, 2005, at 18:53:15
> I am concerned that some ... may feel hurt or offended if a board they post on is mentioned by name and is criticized. Would such a post be considered civil?
IMO, that would be like the disagreements we've seen regarding benzo.org.uk. And politics.
> It is my belief, and one which I hope Dr. Bob will comment on, that concerns about a site's administration belong on that individual site in order to prevent cross-site bashing.
I agree, it's important to be sensitive to the feelings of others, and bashing is unlikely to be supportive. But I don't think I want to make a blanket rule against discussing other sites...
> I personally would prefer to see [a discussion] with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles or policies without naming specific administrators.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/479340.html
I liked that suggestion, too...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 9:34:13
In reply to Danger, Will Robinson! » Gabbi-x-2, posted by partlycloudy on April 4, 2005, at 9:34:57
> My sensors are detecting a troll.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ (which addresses the issue of posters who try to start arguments):
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 partlycloudy on April 5, 2005, at 9:50:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » partlycloudy, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 9:34:13
Had a very bad day and took it out on those here.
Posted by Dinah on April 5, 2005, at 9:54:55
In reply to Re: Different boards, posted by Dr. Bob on April 5, 2005, at 9:32:00
Clarity would help here.
Is it the rule that someone can say "An administrator at another site did xxxxx, and I felt yyyyy." but not "Dr. Grohol did xxxx and I felt yyyy."
And "It upsets me that xxxx happens at another site." but not "It upsets me that xxxx happens at PsychCentral."?
Could you provide a bit of clarity and/or examples if it's a rule? I think that's generally a good idea with a newly implemented rule, don't you?
Posted by 10derHeart on April 5, 2005, at 16:35:45
In reply to Is it a suggestion or the rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 5, 2005, at 9:54:55
Yes, please, Dr. B.
Those were almost my exact questions, too!
Dinah....are you messing about in my head again?
It's dangerous in there...;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2005, at 0:50:32
In reply to Sorry, Dr. Bob., posted by partlycloudy on April 5, 2005, at 9:50:34
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2005, at 0:50:51
In reply to Is it a suggestion or the rule? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 5, 2005, at 9:54:55
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.