![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by confuzyq on July 6, 2007, at 0:30:52
In reply to Re: Generalizations, posted by Justherself54 on July 5, 2007, at 6:12:45
To balance out the other things I tend to focus on on admin, I'll say that this "reprimand" I can understand, on strictly *procedural* counts, not anything whatsoever about the poster or his intentions. Unless -- as someone said, these long-term effects were shown in several established sources as facts.
Someone new here and not knowing the drill, conventions and relationships of the meds boards could be scared out of their wits at these notions... Which many may feel is fact but I gather consists of anecdotal evidence only. We have to be so careful not to unintentionally discourage others in trying to fight what is killing them.
I am way less experienced about this stuff than most med board posters, but still, I think it is so essential to phrase these things as anecdotal only. (I didn't read any more of the thread than appears here on admin.) 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.
Yes, it may be important for even newbies here to hear about the range of caveats; but not to first encounter them as proven, universally accepted facts. True that the dynamics of this board are such that often opinion presented as fact is balanced out by the opinions and experiences and factual offerings of others; but absolute reliance on that -- especially on threads about subjects that recur often -- can't be counted upon. And would constitute a lot of responsibility and pressure on everyone otherwise.
Lastly, I imagine that the further we get entrenched in our inability to fix what's broke, lasting depression, etc.; the less we can really be sure what part the drugs play in impeding sexuality, and what part is merely due to growing frustration and other ramifications of not being able to "fix it" yet....
> > While I was on Paxil, I experienced anorgasmia. Once I stopped it, the anorgasmia went away.
> >
> > On Effexor, I experienced difficulty reaching orgasm. Cyproheptidine fixed it, and once I stopped the medication, I had no problems. (And it wasn't total anorgasmia, either time. It was possible, just very difficult and mostly unlikely.)
> >
> > I've taken antidepressants for years. I have taken SSRIs and SNRIs for years, and have no problems with my sexuality. None of the difficulties I had one the drugs has lasted after reducing the drugs to taper off, let alone after stopping.
> >
> > I take Prozac now. Trust me -- orgasm is not a problem for me.
> >
> > What's more, I have taken SSRIs and SNRIs for most of the past two decades now. I feel -- honestly, I guess I feel unheard, or unheeded, when I read that something bad happens to "everyone" who takes one of these drugs. They have, several times, saved my life. If you'd like to say that that makes me an outlier, that's fine. You're welcome to say that my experience is totally unrepresentative of the whole. It probably is, since my diagnosis is now chronic depression, rather than garden variety, and I am also officially treatment resistant. But I have known many people who took SSRIs and SNRIs and experienced nothing but the benefits.
> >
> > And I feel worried when I read posts saying that these medications cause permanent damage. I worry that, if I had seen this sort of thing before starting Paxil all those years ago, I wouldn't have taken it -- and my life might have ended at that point. Despite all the pain those years have had, I would have missed out on so much. I'm afraid that someone in a similar condition might read these posts, and refuse to take a medication which could save them so much misery, and possibly keep them alive.
> >
> > So, personally, I am grateful that these drugs exist. I dislike their side effects, and I could certainly have lived without the sexual side effects and the weight gain, but you know what? I'm still grateful that these drugs existed, and that I was given them. I would have ended my life if I had not had the relief that these drugs brought.
> >
> > And when we talk about how rotten some of these drugs are, how about remembering those who have had good results, or whose results were good enough to keep them alive or functional. It may be selfish of me, but I believe that our experiences deserve respect, too.
> >
> > Racer, posting personally.
>
> I agree with everything that you've posted, many of these drugs have kept me alive..sexual side effects, weight gain and the whole shebang and I'm grateful they are available. I can remember being on a chat board while trying to get the nerve up to take my first serequel..I was terrified I would get tartive kinesia or some other horrible side effect..with the support of members who were taking serequel, it helped relieve some of my fears and it turned out to be a very helpful med for me..
>
> All I've tried to say in my previous post, is 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 is where the experienced members can help direct them to resources they may be unaware of..this route, to me, would be more productive than blocking, which just seems to stir the pot even more..
>
> Once again, I'm talking about generalized statements, not rude or uncivil posts, which do need to be nipped in the bud..
>
> The person who feels his sexuality is ruined forever and the person who feels there is no support for withdrawal from meds are stating what they truly believe..and however disturbing they may be to some readers, that's where the experienced posters should step in and draw them into some constructive dialog if possible..
>
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 6, 2007, at 7:03:35
In reply to Re: Generalizations, posted by confuzyq on July 6, 2007, at 0:30:52
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 17:40:01
In reply to Re: Generalizations, posted by confuzyq on July 6, 2007, at 0:30:52
> 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
>
> Justherself54I 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.
>
> confuzyqIn all cases, actually...
Bob
Posted by zeugma on July 8, 2007, at 16:47:48
In reply to Re: blocking, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2007, at 17:40:01
> >
>
> > 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>>Speeding tickets are not given for 'technical' violations.
A police officer who fails to read a defendant his Miranda Rights will have the subsequent confession thrown out on technical grounds.
But there is nothing 'technical' about being given a ticket for breaking the speed limit.
Substantive law and procedural (or 'technical')law are utterly distinct.
One involves an offense. The other does not.
Whitewashing this distinction only serves the purpose of obfuscation.
-z
Posted by confuzyq on July 8, 2007, at 18:01:50
In reply to false analogy » Dr. Bob, posted by zeugma on July 8, 2007, at 16:47:48
...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).
> >
> > > 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>>
>
> Speeding tickets are not given for 'technical' violations.
>
> A police officer who fails to read a defendant his Miranda Rights will have the subsequent confession thrown out on technical grounds.
>
> But there is nothing 'technical' about being given a ticket for breaking the speed limit.
>
> Substantive law and procedural (or 'technical')law are utterly distinct.
>
> One involves an offense. The other does not.
>
> Whitewashing this distinction only serves the purpose of obfuscation.
>
> -z
>
>
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
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.