![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 56 to 80 of 129. Go back in thread:
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 18:36:31
In reply to Re: Off topic digressions, multiple ids » fires, posted by TexasChic on July 22, 2004, at 18:25:55
Well gosh - me too! That is not civil at all!!
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 19:37:31
In reply to Re: Off topic digressions, multiple ids » TexasChic, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 18:36:31
> Well gosh - me too! That is not civil at all!!
hello there, chemist here...i rarely wander over to this side of babbleland...i, too, feel a bit hurt by the statement referred to by TexasChic and partlycloudy. given the breadth of maladies we are all working through, i can hardly think anything better than replying to posts if one has something positive to contribute, be it words of comfort, some scientific mumbo-jumbo, or another form of support. finally, i am forced to ask of the ubiquitous poster with the nom de plume ``fires:'' do you, sir, not have anything better to do all day than submit posts ad nauseum? respectfully, chemist
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 19:41:06
In reply to I'm with TC and PC... » partlycloudy, posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 19:37:31
You are so fricken eloquent, chemist. Glad to see you back, and haunting these parts!
Posted by pinkeye on July 22, 2004, at 19:58:20
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » chemist, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 19:41:06
What would it be like to have a T who has the same attitude like Fires?? My God.
Posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:30:13
In reply to I'm with TC and PC... » partlycloudy, posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 19:37:31
>>finally, i am forced to ask of the ubiquitous poster with the nom de plume ``fires:'' do you, sir, not have anything better to do all day than submit posts ad nauseum? respectfully, chemist <<
I take the sarcasm in your rhetorical question to be an ad hominem attack and therefore choose not to reply.
Thanks
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 20:35:48
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » chemist, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 19:41:06
> You are so fricken eloquent, chemist. Glad to see you back, and haunting these parts!
hello there, pc (if i may take the liberty of shortening your call sign: you will, i hope, inform me if you object)...i had been following this and other threads to which ``fires'' has shared his thoughts on so many subjects, most interestingly the notion that numerous doppelgangers were among the crowd here. after reading a most succinct dissection of one of ``fires'' posts by Larry Hoover. i felt compelled to join the party, as i am truly befuddled by the frequency of posts attributed to ``fires:'' might ``fires'' actually be several people posting as one? and despite statements made by ``fires'' to the effect that he will not return to this forum, ``fires'' reappears nonetheless. like Colonal Cathcart in Joseph Heller's ``Catch-22'' - who found himself vexed by the possibility that several Yossarians were mucking things up - i, in an analogous manner, am pondering if there is more than one ``fires,'' after all. they do seem to come and go, and leave cryptic messages. on the other hand, this ``fires'' has littered the board in such a way that even the most reluctant of us are drawn to him (them?). i also note that ``fires'' is keen to discuss ``multiple ids:'' perchance, have i been mistakenly reading ``ids'' as an abbreviation for ``identifiers,'' or ``i.d.s'' when in fact ``fires'' is referring to the id? as i have not found any references to multiple egos or multiple superegos, i am somewhat wary in pursuing this train of thought, yet i do entertain it: what if ``fires'' in subconsciously (or even consciously) alluding to the real possibility that ``fires'' is, in truth, multiple selves? that would be quite clever. all the best, chemist
Posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:38:24
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » chemist, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 19:41:06
>>You are so fricken eloquent,<<
I think everyone knows what "fricken" stands for. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it in any thread that I start.
From the UC Berkeley on line Slang dictionary:
"frigging 1. a "polite" replacement for the word "f*cking." This word is more acceptable in public, but everyone knows what it "means," so it should still not be used in polite company. Also fricking." Mine: also "freakin, fricken"
Thanks
Posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:41:04
In reply to Re: I can imagine something worse, posted by pinkeye on July 22, 2004, at 19:58:20
I don't respond to ad hominem attacks.
Thank You
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2004, at 20:44:01
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:38:24
Buddy, I started a new thread JUST FOR YOU at the bottom. Enjoy.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2004, at 21:02:27
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:38:24
And I think it may be a common misperception. I think that people not familiar with this sort of format might consider that a thread begun by them *belongs* to them. That it should not go off into tangents. That the originator of the thread should have control over what happens in the thread. That is not only should remain being about them, but it should remain being about them in the direction they would like it to go.
That's not what how it works at Babble. There are threads that have gone on for YEARS, and the original posters have long since left Babble for one reason or another. Yet the thread continues, with twists and turns and personal digressions and returns to the original subject.
The only person who owns threads on these boards is Dr. Bob. We sign away all our rights to him when we register. He owns the posts and can use them in any way he likes. We are required to follow *his* rules. We can't set our own. Dr. Bob generally allows narrowly disguised cuss words but doesn't allow the real thing. ONLY Dr. Bob can set the rules.
It must be truly painful to you that things don't follow the course you think they should follow. But things generally don't follow the course any of us think they should. And we generally feel a lot less pain in life if we accept that fact.
You might be met with greater warmth from fellow posters if you check your expectations against communal expectations and calmly discuss the differences and why you feel the way you do, and have a genuine interest in why others feel the way they do.
And I *am* interested in why you feel the way you do. Are you bewildered by the reception you get at the various places you've met with "ad hominem attacks"? Do you go in attempting to be helpful and are totally surprised and hurt at the response?
Do you secretly long for a healing therapeutic relationship and are afraid of reaching out for one because of your bad experiences? You don't need to be afraid. Just careful. Many of us interview several therapists before we choose one. Others unfortunately have one assigned to them. What sort of qualities would you look for in a therapist?
Why do you threaten to run away from Babble when you are met with kindness, yet keep returning? I assure you there is no need to be afraid. There are many posters here who are eager to extend a friendly hand. It's a bit scary isn't it? I'm sympathetic. When you haven't been met with much kindness in your life, it's hard to trust good intentions.
Why don't you start a new thread, to talk to the people who have friendly feelings toward you?
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 21:32:34
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:30:13
> >>finally, i am forced to ask of the ubiquitous poster with the nom de plume ``fires:'' do you, sir, not have anything better to do all day than submit posts ad nauseum? respectfully, chemist <<
>
> I take the sarcasm in your rhetorical question to be an ad hominem attack and therefore choose not to reply.
>
> Thanks
>
hello there, chemist here. my question is indeed sincere, and you have reeled me in once again, as you stated that you would not reply, yet here i am, replying to your reply. did you mean, perhaps, that you would reply, but not answer the question i posed? i would not dare put words in one's mouth. please advise....all the best, chemist
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2004, at 21:50:37
In reply to Re: I can imagine something worse, posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:41:04
I really don't know all that much about you, other than that you would like to give the impression that you don't trust therapy. And that you have a special interest in recovered memories.
I always think it's much easier to bond if they know more about each other, and I'm sure the board would feel closer to you if they had a better understanding of where you're coming from.
It may appear that I have nothing better to do than to spend my days answering posts. :) But I also work 25-30 hours a week, and have a husband and young son that give me a great deal of joy. My diagnosis is OCD and cyclothymia, although I've had a couple of episodes of major depression - moderate. Two definitely had a hormonal component. I'm not sure if you're a woman. I've always rather had the impression you were male, but I'm sure there are male equivilants to female puberty, though probably not post-partum.
How about you? You mentioned that you spent some time in a hospital. Is your diagnosis depression? Bipolar? You also seem to have some pretty strong feelings about recovered memories. Have you or someone you care about been accused that way? I think everyone would have a lot more compassion for the strength of your convictions if they had a better understanding of how you came to have such strong opinions.
And of course, no one on Babble is obligated to answer any questions whatsoever. So if you feel at all uncomfortable, you can just politely ignore any or all of them.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2004, at 22:06:13
In reply to Re: I can imagine something worse, posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:41:04
I know that some people come to a bulletin board and feel like they get lost in the woodwork. Their posts aren't answered. They don't feel at home. They're afraid they're being received with indifference. And *any* reaction at all may feel better than indifference. I think that's often true on and off line. Has that ever happened to you?
I think that if you have any concerns that you'll be lost in the shuffle, you can put them to rest. There will be people that will go out of their way to be kind to you. It isn't necessary to add spice to the life of this board. No one will see you as boring old mashed potatos.
Or some people feel they need to shock people out of complacency in order to get their attention. I've never found that to work very well in my life. What do you think of the technique? Do you think it's effective?
Posted by JenStar on July 22, 2004, at 23:32:49
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » partlycloudy, posted by chemist on July 22, 2004, at 20:35:48
awesome, funny post! :) I love Catch 22 - one of my very favorite books. Good analogy! :)
Chuckling...
JenStar (Or...is it TexasChic....or it is AuntieMel? The possibilities, like the Yossarians, abound!)
Posted by JenStar on July 22, 2004, at 23:49:31
In reply to Re: I can imagine something worse, posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:41:04
Fires,
why are you here? Are you here to stir up trouble for fun (for you), or do you genuinely want to connect with other people who are going thru rough spots in their lives?If you're here to connect, please stay. Welcome. Just try to be a little nicer. Then we'll all like you better.
If you're here to stir up trouble, take off!
I'm being blunt. I know it. Probably offensive, too.But your posts have not started anything positive here...except for the wonderfully human, outreaching letter from a few folks, esp. Dinah (wow...what a gal! I aspire to be so kind and forgiving...seriously.)
It's your choice. I'm interested to see what you decide.
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:22:41
In reply to one small step for me, posted by fires on July 16, 2004, at 10:49:17
> I complained too much about my physical symptoms, apparently. Anyway, my Pdoc ignored the following FACTS: 1) Too much Effexor was responsible for some of the symptoms (they went away when my dose was lowered) 2) I had OBJECTIVE data (x-rays, biopsy, cardiac event recorder data, BP and Pulse data) to support nearly all of my physical complaints.
First off, I can be certain that the doctor did not ignore the factual medical evidence. In somatoform disorders, the symptoms are real. The suffering is real. There may also be concurrent medical disease. The one type of diagnosis does not exclude the other.
What sets somatoform apart (there are a number of different sub-types, but you don't further specify) is that following a series of diagnostic tests and assessments, no underlying disease state can be found.
> I'd urge everyone who reads this to never accept a DX of Somataform Disorder because it can not be proven with OBJECTIVE tests. It is a SUBJECTIVE disorder.
It is a syndrome which is defined by the failure to diagnose other disorders first (a process called the differential diagnosis). It's what's left, when you checked everything else. The objective tests failed. You're right that it isn't proven with objective tests. It's reluctantly assessed because of objective tests, though. Chronic fatigue syndrome is another example of diagnosis by exclusion. Personality disorders, too.
> The recommended treatment is still largely psychobabble. (Which is why I posted this here).
The recommended treatment is still *medical*. It is supportive symptomatic treatment, with reassurance (based on negative objective test results) that there isn't any evidence of a serious disease. From the Merck Manual: "Usually, the best treatment is a calm, firm, supportive relationship with a physician who offers symptomatic relief and protects the patient from unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures."
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:24:42
In reply to Re: Off topic digressions, multiple ids » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 22, 2004, at 16:15:38
It's okay. I have oven mitts.
> Some observations....
>
> > Notice how many times the subject line of my post got changed.
>
> Nobody changed the subject line of your post. It's still the same, and it's still at the top of this thread. People changed the subject line of their own posts. It's a simple matter to change it back, if it's important to you.
>
> > also, how far afield it got from my original subject line.
>
> Like you, right now?
>
> > Also, follow some of the posts by persons who say one thing to one poster than say another , to another. (180 degrees opposite).
>
> Don't read posters who trouble you, maybe?
>
> > I'm curious, don't some people have other things to do besides reply to posts all day long?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> 19 out of about 52 of all the posts in this thread are yours.
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 9:28:41
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:38:24
> I think everyone knows what "fricken" stands for. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it in any thread that I start.>
When you said "Sorry to have to inform you, but 99.99% of everything you wrote is in my opinion either : 1)pure fiction or 2) unprovable or 3) complete **,"" doesn't ** stand for something? Something that might offend others? Fricken is a common euphemism that is accepted by society as benign, just like 'darn' or 'heck'. It doesn't fall under the category of cursing. Its a substitute just like ** was for you.
Posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 9:32:05
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by JenStar on July 22, 2004, at 23:32:49
> awesome, funny post! :) I love Catch 22 - one of my very favorite books. Good analogy! :)
>
> Chuckling...
>
> JenStar (Or...is it TexasChic....or it is AuntieMel? The possibilities, like the Yossarians, abound!)
hello there, chemist chemist here...or am i? all the best...
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 11:15:15
In reply to Re: one small step for me, posted by fires on July 16, 2004, at 19:21:54
You know, I truly enjoyed talking to you before you accused me of being dishonest and posting under another name. Everyone here has a common bond. It's an unspoken rule not to mess with someone like you insist we have. It would be breaking the very foundation that binds this online community together. No one makes fun, no one accuses someone of being deceitful. We are very protective and when someone comes in saying things that hurt, we do tend to circle the wagons. I think you might consider the fact that you have had problems on other boards as well as ours. Don't you think that indicates that maybe you should try a different tactic? I think the fact that so many people tried again and again to work things out with you, that it proves the people here are sincere. No one here wants to turn anyone away because of the seriousness of the issues we discuss. If you would give us a chance we would welcome you with open arms. I hope you will consider trying to work with us instead of against us.
Thank you,
TexasChic
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:32:32
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s) » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:22:41
I don't think you attacked me in the near past with ad hominem messages, so I will repond.
>>What sets somatoform apart (there are a number of different sub-types, but you don't further specify) is that following a series of diagnostic tests and assessments, no underlying disease state can be found.<<
You so eloquently stated above the problem with Somatoform: It assumes that there are tests and assessments currently available for all disorders/diseases. That's an incorrect assumption!!
Stomach and duodenal ulcers were once considered to be of "psychosomatic" etiology, but along came "better" science, and a bacteria was demonstrated to be the cause of ulcers. So all the ulcer victims were suddenly no longer victims of their own psyches.
Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the medical field, so I will give you another example of how one can test/be assessed neg. for a med. problem yet still have one/it.
My sister (ECG tech) has told me many stories of people who have come into the ER with MI symptoms, only to test negative for MI. Then they die of a massive MI on the way home.
Thank you
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:34:44
In reply to Re: Fires....too hot to handle?, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:24:42
>>> Don't read posters who trouble you, maybe?<<
Good advice to those who feel the need to attack me personally.
Thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by JenStar on July 22, 2004, at 23:32:49
and start over. Or if you feel you can't start over right now, please don't help make things worse.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:39:09
In reply to Please everyone, let's take a deep breath, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
I feel like someone in a 50s movie. "can't we all just play nice"
I take no sides here. I just want peace in the family.
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 12:17:34
In reply to Please everyone, let's take a deep breath, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
I didn't mean my post as an attack, I was trying to reach out. I was honestly trying to help, not make things worse. But if that's what I did I apologize.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.