![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 65 to 89 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 21:19:08
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 18:32:03
Reading or not reading is everyone's perogative. But I'm working on trying to establish peace.
I seem to be having a bit of trouble with civil today, so I'll phrase this as a question for anyone that wants to answer.
Is it necessary to announce that you aren't reading?
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 21:32:11
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires » partlycloudy, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 20:34:27
As far as I know there aren't any people here with MPD. And, people are suspected of having multiple names much, much more than it happens. They usually get caught and blocked (I say usually, 'cause if they don't get caught I don't know)
I haven't been here real long, but I lurked long enough to be pretty dang sure that no one that has talked to you is double dipping.
Good that you figured how to show who you're answering. It mike make things a bit less comfusing.
Hang in there
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 21:50:47
In reply to Re:MPD? » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 21:32:11
There were a few who got real upset when I posted links to scientific sites saying that the Disorder is not real.
Of all the Ts I had in the past only one believed in MPD, and he also believed in hypnosis for T, which is also not scientifically based.
bye
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 7:55:47
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 18:17:52
> Ad hominem attack ignored.
Well, you see, that's too bad. I've been trying to show you, via mimicry, something of what you appear to present to others on this board.
I copied your style, and modelled it as best I could. I was hoping that this mirroring of your language might serve to alert you to the effect of your own language structures, on others. It was, perhaps, a test of empathy.
You frequently label other people's (often innocent) remarks as ad hominem, yet it appears as if you do not apply similar standards to your own constructs. That is, by definition, hypocrisy.
When you directly target another poster, and either suggest or expressly state that you believe they are violating a central tenet of this board (posting under more than one name), that is ad hominem.
When you challenge the credibility of a poster, based on the quality of her training, and her own use of therapy, that is ad hominem. Do you need to know the ad hominem variant?
When you express your own displeasure with a treatment modality or a diagnosis, based on your own experience, that is fine. But when you project your displeasure outwards, and generalize to other members of this board, you are casting a wide net of ad hominem inflection. The appropriateness and merit of a diagnosis or treatment is a personal matter. My challenging you on the criteria around your somatoform (mis)diagnosis was intended to show you how it feels. I am sure you felt defensive. I am sure you felt more than a little bit annoyed. Perhaps you even felt hurt. I'm sorry, but it felt necessary.
Choices are made all the time. The past is the past. Let's see if we can't make new choices, and enjoy the fruits of our efforts.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 10:23:31
In reply to Re: ad hominem » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 7:55:47
> You frequently label other people's (often innocent) remarks as ad hominem, yet it appears as if you do not apply similar standards to your own constructs. That is, by definition, hypocrisy.I wish to apologize if my language has appeared to be uncivil. If you would be so kind, "The jury will disregard the defendant's last remark."
Lar
Posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 10:41:14
In reply to Re: ad hominem » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 7:55:47
I couldn't disagree with you more!
I believe that you wrote like you have some paranormal abilities, because now my "language structure" has come under scrutiny! First, I believe that people trried to put words in my mouth, now you have tried to analyze my lang. sructure. I wonder what's next? I think some here are into "overanalysis."
I certainly disagree with your definition of hypocrisy.
Whom was my "ad hominem" attack, about using multiple names directed at? I've "attacked" therapies and some of my Ts, but not individuals. There's a big difference. Because people disagree with my ideas/opinions doesn't mean they are attacking me with ad hominem attacks. There's a big difference between saying, "you are an idiot" and saying, "I believe that an idea is idiotic". If someone posts here that therapy "type 101" is silly, that's fine. Maybe therapy type 101 is my favorite therapy. Should I take offense? Of course not!! How could I live an even half way normal life if I were to take offense to eveything said that I don't agree with? I'd be throwing bricks at my TV if I took offense at everything said that I don't agree with. :)
The ad hominem attacks that I've experienced here have come from those who resort to name calling (concealed not so cleverly in questions about my mental health, or my "purposes" -- which they claim to know!!)
>>My challenging you on the criteria around your somatoform (mis)diagnosis was intended to show you how it feels. I am sure you felt defensive. I am sure you felt more than a little bit annoyed. Perhaps you even felt hurt. I'm sorry, but it felt necessary.<<
I think you should be more careful re: assuming what I am thinking/feeling. Your above assumptions are wrong. You don't even know me, other than by my posts, yet you believe that you can asume what I'm thinking/feeling?
I see this as a *CORE* problem with many on this group: they *assume*. Perhaps asking someone, before assuming, is a better idea when thoughts and feelings are involved?
>>Choices are made all the time. The past is the past. Let's see if we can't make new choices, and enjoy the fruits of our efforts.<<
I've chosen to warn the "inexperienced" and "new to T patients" about Ts that are scientifically unfounded. Seems a noble cause to me. I choose to continue to express my beliefs. I choose to not be upset with every person who doesn't agree with my opinions (and therefore may take it personally). That's their problem ("issue"), which they may want to bring up with their therapist.
Best Wishes
'Time flies like a bullet, but fruit flies like oranges'
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 11:42:50
In reply to Re: ad hominem » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 10:41:14
> I couldn't disagree with you more!
>
> I believe that you wrote like you have some paranormal abilities, because now my "language structure" has come under scrutiny! First, I believe that people trried to put words in my mouth, now you have tried to analyze my lang. sructure. I wonder what's next? I think some here are into "overanalysis."Fine with me, that you believe as you do. Bob has expressed that he does not go by intent. He goes by words. I used your words. I should be just fires, errr, fine.
>> I am sure you felt defensive. I am sure you felt more than a little bit annoyed. Perhaps you even felt hurt. I'm sorry, but it felt necessary.<<
>
> I think you should be more careful re: assuming what I am thinking/feeling. Your above assumptions are wrong.Good. No harm, no foul.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2004, at 11:44:30
In reply to Re: My credentials » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 17:49:37
>
> Oh, gg, I just love when a gal talks all geeky. <swoon>Aha! I'll have to keep that in mind. Besides, TofuEmmy asked ME to marry her before she asked you...
[getting the smelling salts]
gg
Posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 12:36:25
In reply to Re: ad hominem » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 11:42:50
> > I couldn't disagree with you more!
> >
> > I believe that you wrote like you have some paranormal abilities, because now my "language structure" has come under scrutiny! First, I believe that people tried to put words in my mouth, now you have tried to analyze my lang. structure. I wonder what's next? I think some here are into "over-analysis."
>
> Fine with me, that you believe as you do. Bob has expressed that he does not go by intent. He goes by words. I used your words. I should be just fires, errr, fine.
>
> >> I am sure you felt defensive. I am sure you felt more than a little bit annoyed. Perhaps you even felt hurt. I'm sorry, but it felt necessary.<<
> >
> > I think you should be more careful re: assuming what I am thinking/feeling. Your above assumptions are wrong.
>
> Good. No harm, no foul.So words are synonymous with "language structure"?
Also, to try and decide one's intent from the use of words is quite difficult. I'm on forums on which people constantly misinterpret the meaning of others' statements. Some suggested the liberal use of "emoticons" to help with the problem.
Also, I'm not much of a politician. I generally say what I mean, and mean what I say. If some here are happier with convoluted writing patterns that circumvent real feelings and ideas, so be it.
Examples: Political rhetoric translated into plain English:
Crisis: Any situation you want to change.
Equal opportunity: Preferential treatment.
Non-judgmental: Blaming society.
Simplistic: An argument you disagree with but can't answer.
Rehabilitation: Magic words said before releasing criminals.
Demonstration: A riot by people you agree with
Mob violence: A riot by people you disagree with.
bye
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 17:57:48
In reply to Re: ad hominem, posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 12:36:25
> Examples: Political rhetoric translated into plain English:
>
> Crisis: Any situation you want to change."Brutal honesty: People who get off on brutal honesty are more interested in the brutality than in the honesty." Anonymous 12-stepper
Posted by AuntieMel on July 24, 2004, at 21:57:04
In reply to Re: ad hominem » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 24, 2004, at 7:55:47
Lar - watch your back. I believe there is someone here we've all met before. Possibly someone we emailed about yesterday.
fires - you be careful too. This is all new to you and I fear you might get caught in it.
Posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 22:49:10
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on July 24, 2004, at 21:57:04
> Lar - watch your back. I believe there is someone here we've all met before. Possibly someone we emailed about yesterday.
>
> fires - you be careful too. This is all new to you and I fear you might get caught in it.Can you tell me more? Is this person just a web threat, or a life threat(like does the person pay people visits in person?)? I would like to know.
Thanks
Posted by JenStar on July 25, 2004, at 13:29:12
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires » partlycloudy, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 20:34:27
sometimes I wonder if people go on here (or any board) and write posts that are 'fake' just to see what happens. For example, would a psych. student or just an interested person write a very sad story to see what kind of positive response it garners?
WOULD someone create a totally different identity just to try it out for fun? People lie all the time in chat rooms, about their looks / profession / age / etc. Why not here on a psych. board?
I don't suspect anyone in particular. I don't really suspect anyone at all! I'm not trying to make trouble. I just wonder sometimes.
JenStar
> > Yes, but WE have no idea who you are responding to. Might be why you think there are multiple names for someone you think is one person.
> >
> > Just a guess.
>
> That doesn't have anything to do with why I think there may be multiple name posters.
>
> This group is unlike any I have posted to before.Yahoo groups and **** Forums leave no doubt who is responding to who. No need to check special boxes. I didn't even realize that fact until now. I'm going to re-read the suspicious posts and then see if I want to post the info.
>
> I'm sure you realize that the MPD folks here believe that the multiple names use is part of their illness. I don't buy it. Another link to why I don't:
>
> http://www.psycom.net/mchugh.html
>
> bye
>
Posted by AuntieMel on July 25, 2004, at 20:37:56
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » AuntieMel, posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 22:49:10
It is impossible to say for sure since the deputy doesn't have access to the ip addresses, but it appears that a blocked person has come back with a different identity. And when that one was blocked, yet another one.
And, in some of the threads I was complimented on my "treatment" - whatever treatment is - of you and my fairness, trying to make others suspicious of you, too.
Read admin pages for more details.
This happens from time to time around here. It gets resolved eventually, but remember the folks around here can be hypersensitive. An extra bit of pacience would be good for us all.
Hang in there.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 25, 2004, at 20:45:52
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 25, 2004, at 20:37:56
You *are* being brought into it.....
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/370289.html
Posted by fires on July 25, 2004, at 23:10:59
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 25, 2004, at 20:37:56
Whew! I thought that you meant there was a stalker type here -- that is also a real life one>> ("watch your back").
I don't care about a web brat, or worse, as long as it's strictly web based.
I appreciate your support.
bye
Posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 8:42:36
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » AuntieMel, posted by fires on July 25, 2004, at 23:10:59
As far as I know, there has never been a physical stalker here. Just the brats. And a relatively small number of those, too.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 11:42:06
In reply to Re: ad hominem » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on July 24, 2004, at 10:41:14
You said (taken out of context admittedly):
'I've chosen to warn the "inexperienced" and "new to T patients" about Ts that are scientifically unfounded. '
That begs the question - are *any* forms of therapy scientifically founded? There are some that are "declared" valid based on empirical data, but I don't know of any test that can be done that will give a definitive answer to the question.
And even among methods, the results will vary by client willingness and therapist ability, to name a few.
So, if there is no way to "scientifically" validate a therapy method, it only boils down to one thing. An *individual* person with a *compatible experienced* therapist using a method that works between them, whatever it is.
So, wouldn't you agree that the bottom line is, basically, "whatever floats you boat?"
Posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 13:11:21
In reply to Re: ad homine- Lar AND fires » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 8:42:36
Thank goodness. There was an infamous web hacker and ham radio operator in so. Calif. who years ago, shut off people's phones and caused a lot of problems. Google "Kevin Mitnick" if interested. The Feds did catch him and he did do time in the pen.
bye
Posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 13:57:27
In reply to Re: I'd like to discuss something » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 11:42:06
> You said (taken out of context admittedly):
>
> 'I've chosen to warn the "inexperienced" and "new to T patients" about Ts that are scientifically unfounded. '
>
> That begs the question - are *any* forms of therapy scientifically founded? There are some that are "declared" valid based on empirical data, but I don't know of any test that can be done that will give a definitive answer to the question.
>
> And even among methods, the results will vary by client willingness and therapist ability, to name a few.
>
> So, if there is no way to "scientifically" validate a therapy method, it only boils down to one thing. An *individual* person with a *compatible experienced* therapist using a method that works between them, whatever it is.
>
> So, wouldn't you agree that the bottom line is, basically, "whatever floats you boat?"
>
>Definetly not! 1)Bogus therapies have killed people:
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_58867
2)Bogus therapies can tear families apart and result in people being falsely accused of crimes. Courts get bogged down with false memory cases, and taxpayers foot the bill:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/witchhunt.html
3)Many experts agree with my opinion(s):
bye
Posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 15:29:17
In reply to Re: I'd like to discuss something, posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 13:57:27
Good articles. I'm not denying that this stuff happens. But I am contending that it is not the norm - or they wouldn't be writing articles, would they?
I think that method of therapy aside, we can agree that the therapists themselves in these articles failed the 'ability' part of my premise.
I'm not even sure I'd call the out-of-the-womb type of "therapy" psychotherapy. Or any other "therapy" that is mostly physical in nature. And smothering wouldn't be called a good outcome, no matter how much attachment the girl felt before she died. BUT, the same article had therapists that said true rebirthing can be therapudic. And I don't have enough data to dispute that.
And I'll certainly agree that a lot of the 'recovered memory' cases that hit the news probably aren't true memories. Especially the ones involving a therapist like the therapist in the article you posted. In fact, I would say it is downright unethical to plant suggestions in a client's head. My family has had people in it with what I believe to be bogus recovered memories, so I know how bad it can be.
But that doesn't mean there aren't any recovered memories. I know I've successfully blocked out memories of things that were traumatic. At least temporarily - they come back on their own when someone else in the family is talking about the situation. Is that a recovered memory? I would say yes.
I will grant you some methods are used more frequently than others, due to them working best on the largest population. But I won't rule out that any method, properly used, doesn't have a place for at least a small percentage of the population.
So, again, what I posed still seems to be valid to me. It contains 1) a client 2) a compatible AND experienced therapist 3) a method, whatever it is - or no method at all, and 4) the other three combine to something that works.
And I still say that if you have all these ingredients which method you use is moot.
Posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 16:25:57
In reply to Re: I'd like to discuss something, posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 15:29:17
> Good articles. I'm not denying that this stuff happens. But I am contending that it is not the norm - or they wouldn't be writing articles, would they?
>
> I think that method of therapy aside, we can agree that the therapists themselves in these articles failed the 'ability' part of my premise.
>
> I'm not even sure I'd call the out-of-the-womb type of "therapy" psychotherapy. Or any other "therapy" that is mostly physical in nature. And smothering wouldn't be called a good outcome, no matter how much attachment the girl felt before she died. BUT, the same article had therapists that said true rebirthing can be therapudic. And I don't have enough data to dispute that.
>
> And I'll certainly agree that a lot of the 'recovered memory' cases that hit the news probably aren't true memories. Especially the ones involving a therapist like the therapist in the article you posted. In fact, I would say it is downright unethical to plant suggestions in a client's head. My family has had people in it with what I believe to be bogus recovered memories, so I know how bad it can be.
>
> But that doesn't mean there aren't any recovered memories. I know I've successfully blocked out memories of things that were traumatic. At least temporarily - they come back on their own when someone else in the family is talking about the situation. Is that a recovered memory? I would say yes.
>
> I will grant you some methods are used more frequently than others, due to them working best on the largest population. But I won't rule out that any method, properly used, doesn't have a place for at least a small percentage of the population.
>
> So, again, what I posed still seems to be valid to me. It contains 1) a client 2) a compatible AND experienced therapist 3) a method, whatever it is - or no method at all, and 4) the other three combine to something that works.
>
> And I still say that if you have all these ingredients which method you use is moot.As I've posted before, most people would love to be able to forget or repress traumatic memories, but it just doesn't happen, according to those who study memory. Most trauma victims, whether it be Equake victims or 9-11 survivors are troubled by their memories. I've yet to read one scientific report of any 9-11 survivors "forgetting" the experience(obviously those with head injuries may have permanent memory loss).
From skepdic.com:
"There is a great deal of supportive evidence for the claim that the more traumatic an experience, the more likely one is to remember it. Novel visual images, which would frequently accompany traumas, stimulate the hippocampus and left inferior prefrontal cavity and generally become part of long-term memory.
Current studies in neuroscience strongly support the notion that a memory is a set of encoded neural connections. Encoding can take place in several parts of the brain. Thus, neural connections are likely to go across various parts of the brain. The stronger the connections, the stronger the memory. Recollection of an event can occur by a stimulus to any of the parts of the brain where a neural connection for the memory occurs. If part of the brain is damaged, access to any neural data that was there is lost. On the other hand, if the brain is healthy and a person is fully conscious when experiencing some trauma, the likelihood that they will forget the event is nearly zero, unless either they are very young or they experience a brain injury."
bye
Posted by AuntieMel on July 26, 2004, at 17:34:38
In reply to Re: I'd like to discuss something » AuntieMel, posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 16:25:57
or they consciously push it aside *every* time it comes up for a very long time.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2004, at 18:01:09
In reply to Re: We don't read Fires » pinkeye, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 17:38:00
> We don't read Fires
> Or anybody else who posts such obviously hurting messages.
>
> pinkeye> fires didn't answer the question. I think XX chromosomes. Maybe XXX.
>
> Larry HooverPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you have any questions or comments 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
or redirect a follow-up to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 64bowtie on July 27, 2004, at 15:48:27
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:48:46
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.