![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 114 to 138 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:24:45
In reply to Re: using the option, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:16:20
Dinah,
Thanks for the help. That will make things much easier.
Lou
PS.. Are you OK now? What hurt you ?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:29:35
In reply to Ayuda's response to two of Lou's posts of 3-25 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 16:31:08
ayuda,
3. I am not in any type of verbal assult with anyone. I am sorry if you feel that way.
I hope the you will consider that my requests for clarification can be benifitial to not only me in order to reply accordingly, but also to the poster so that they can [rule out] possible misunderstandings that I may percieve in their post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:30:38
In reply to Re: using the option » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:24:45
You did, Lou. By commenting on the frequency of my posting in a way that didn't sound particularly positive. I do have a job you know, and a family....
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:35:21
In reply to Lou's reply to ayuda's post-G1 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:14:24
> ayuda,
> Below are some replys to your post:
> 1. I can not spend as much time answering here as ,perhaps, Dinah or Dreamerz or noa or NikkiT2 or some of the other names that you may see often here. I manage 1000s upon 1000s of shares of stock from 8:30Am till 4:00PM via the internat which does give me time between executions to post here. Also I am involved in a movie and I manage many properties. When I open the net in the morning, and there is a post directed to me, I feel that I have some sort of obligation to reply , although I am not saying that others should have that same obligation. Some times when I reply to one poster, a group of other posters will somehow appear and involve me in more discussion. That makes it hard to come back to the original poster that I was replying to. But I am interested in answering all of your requests and hope to do so soon.
> Lou
>For someone who is that busy, you sure put out a lot of messages asking a lot of questions, but fewer answering them. And I don't recall involving you in my original post, you sent me 5 or 6 comments when I was replying to Dinah, so you can't blame your participation solely on other people. That's all I'm saying.
And, for someone who is so concerned with their own feelings when confronted, your insinuation that people like Dinah, NikkiT2, et al., have nothing better to do is fairly rude. Though you did not include me on that list, I just would like to mention that I am a full-time PhD student, I teach college history at a major US university, and I tutor gifted high school students and learning-disabled college student athletes at one of the nation's top NCAA schools, but this board gives me a lot of important information concerning my medications, so I try to be kind to people on it by responding to their inquiries. Perhaps the above-mentioned people are also busy but just share my respect for other members of this site.
And again, I am suggesting that these conversations don't belong on Psycho-Babble Administration, and that perhaps a re-direct is in order.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:42:27
In reply to Re: using the option » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:30:38
Dinah,
I am sorry that you took it that way, for it was not my intention. What could also be deduced is that your are more dedicated to this board than I and involve yourself in many many threads, and innitiate your own threads whereas I am only involving myself in threads that involve me. I have stopped the [7 gates] here, and I do not innitiate threads anymore as I used to do. I even stopped [which one does not belong, what's wrong with this picture, games...],(which dreamerz has contributed to).
I apologise.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
In reply to Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:29:35
> ayuda,
> 3. I am not in any type of verbal assult with anyone. I am sorry if you feel that way.
> I hope the you will consider that my requests for clarification can be benifitial to not only me in order to reply accordingly, but also to the poster so that they can [rule out] possible misunderstandings that I may percieve in their post.
> LouLou, since I do have lots of better things to do, this will be my last response to you, and the last time I read Admin, because I would rather be discussing my medications and side-effects with people who are using Psycho-Babble to be helpful and not to play verbal cat and mouse games.
No, actually, I consider your "requests for clarification" to be unwarranted (as in the case of pointing out Nikki's typos), confrontational, lacking in any significance whatsoever to the original conversations, and just plain annoying. I am not so stupid or naive as to believe that just because someone puts "this will help me understand you better" that their otherwise smart-alek or insulting comments are harmless. And you can leave off the patronizing remarks, "I feel sorry for you," because those are the most insulting. I'm sure that you are being genuine, but just because you are being genuine does not mean that you are being kind, helpful, or harmless, as can be seen in other people's responses to you.
And sorry that you don't have the time to re-read what you have written, but I don't have time to be your research assistant.
Bye.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:47:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ayuda's post-G1 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:35:21
ayuda,
I was replying to Jonathan's post this morning and others joined in the discussion, which is fine. In you post, i was already a discussant , as I remember, in the thread that you posted on and thearfore I had an interet in your post because it was relevant to the entire discussion that , as i remember, was a participant.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:51:42
In reply to Re: using the option » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:42:27
Thank you, Lou. That does sound a bit better. I appreciate the clarification.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:54:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
ayuda,
Sorry, but I feel that I , at times when a person's post could be construed different ways, to ask for clarification so that I can respond accordingly and I feel that asking for clarification is not confrontational, and insted of lacking in significance, the requests could lead to greater significance for the clarification gives more light on the subject and could rule out ambiguities.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 18:56:15
In reply to Re: using the option » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2003, at 18:51:42
Dinah,
Thank you for your response, for I was hoping that you would [...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 19:08:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
ayuda,
I consider your statement that I use smart-alec and/or insulting comments to invoke from me a request for you to identify those statements of mine that you include in your conclusion that they are smart-alec or insulting so that I could respond accordingly and, possibly clarify that they were not smart-alsc or insulting, for it was not my intention to do so. There is a principle here that you [...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...] and that is another reason that I ask for clarification so that theer can be a review of any doubts. Now you have writen that you will not respond to your post to me and that leaves me with no venue to ask you for clarification. I feel hurt when people tell me something and then deny me the opportunity to ask them for clarification.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 19:54:06
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Johnathan,
You quoted a verse from the christiandom bible that Jesus said. I am not a member of christiandom.
Could you clarify if you are quoting that verse because you are a member of christiandom, or because of some other reason? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
OTOH, whether you are a member of christiandom or not, are you saying that this jesus is telling me that because I paraphrased a statement by another poster in order to direct the post to that part of her post, that I have committed a violation,and perhaps be condemmed, by that jesus? Does this jesus in your post consider what someone does to be of two different natures, such as a willfull or an innocent trespass? I have read that there is a jesus that looks into the heart of a person and judges not on the outside, but inwardly. Is the jesus that I have read about a different jesus or the same jesus that you referr to in your post to me? If you could clarify these things, I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 20:11:30
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote about a jesus. Is the jesus in your post to me , the same jesus that said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." If so, could you clarify if you are accusing me of deliberatly misrepresenting something,(and I was not) in the post in question? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of why you quoted a jesus in your post to me. You see, I read of a jesus that had a woman taken to Him by others saying that they caught her in adultery and asked Him if she should be stoned to death. That jesus told the women to go and sin no more., instead of being stoned to death. There was no condemnation to her. It is my deep conviction that in this passage, He saw into the women's heart, and even though she was taken to Him by her accusers, I believe that her accusers were the ones that she was committing adultery with and thearfore she was entrapped, or forced, or too feeble in mind to comprehend , or did not know of the commandment to not commit adultery and thearfore did not willfully commit the act. Could you clarify if the jesus in this passage is the same or a different jesus that you are referring to in your post to me? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2003, at 20:36:52
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You cited a talmidic verse:[...what is hatefull to you, do not to your fellow man...].
Are you citing that verse because you are associating hate in some way with me or someone else on the thread in question? If so, could you clarify who this is and what the hate, if there is hate, is? If you could, I could be better able to understand your citing of this verse in relation to the topic discussed and I would like you to know that I harbor no hate for anyone.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:09:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 25, 2003, at 9:07:33
> I believe paraphrasing can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to many misunderstandings.
It can be, but misunderstandings can be corrected, and I'd rather not further restrict freedom of speech here.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:30:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
> My guess ... is that Lou is reading only the parts of our posts that will permit him to attack our statements.
> I consider your "requests for clarification" to be unwarranted ... confrontational, lacking in any significance whatsoever to the original conversations, and just plain annoying.
> smart-alek or insulting comments
> patronizing remarksIt may be frustrating here sometimes, but please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
> it appears that Lou does not answer direct questions
Also, if people prefer not to answer questions, I'd rather they didn't feel they had to... Thanks,
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » ayuda, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2003, at 21:30:13
So, it IS ok for the Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??
It seems to me that Lou simply wants things HIS way. When I used a direct quote of his, just not the whole sentence (and I did use ... to signify it wasn't the end of the sentence) he got very upset, even though what he had said I found incredibly offensive.
But when Lou takes something someone has said, and changes its meaning by using his own words, credited to the original poster, its allowed to pass with no problem??Lou constantly pushes people until they snap. I know he has been blocked many times in the past, but it does seem that you give him much more lee way than other people.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:18:45
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"So, it IS OK for Lou to take things we've said and change the meaning of them by his use of paraphrasing??
Are you making an accusation toward me that because I paraphrased someone's statement that it was my [intention]to change the meaning of the statement? If so, could you identify what it is that you use to determine that I, or anyone else, [deliberatly] paraphrased a statement by another to change a meaning?
Are you saying that because there is a paraphrase that someone could [not] ask for clarification to the person that made the paraphase so that any misunderstanding could be cleard up and [must] rush to some judgment about the poster that posted the paraphrase that they deliberatly used the paraphrase to change the meaning? If so, are you saying that the principle that Dr. Bob has established here that says,[...give the poster the benifit of the doubt...] does not apply to me? If you could clarify these things, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:44:50
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-H1 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:18:45
If someone reads your words, and see's only your meaning, they are unlikely to ask for clarification as they believe they have an understanding of what was said. Not everyone asks for clarification of every single little point.
Oh, and if you go though all the boards, you will find few postings from me. I do not [spend all my time] on the board *smile*
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 7:57:09
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote about your use of a direct quote of something that I had written. In that quote, you left out 3 words that I simply asked you to rewrite and include those words because, first, a use of quotation marks means that you are writing the exact words of someone, not a paraphrase,and what you wrote was not the exact statement that I had written, and I thought that the meaning could be different without the 3 words. I simply asked you for correction of your quote,and if someone wanted me to add some more of the paraphrase that I used in order to clarify, I would welcome such a request and accomodate the poster's wishes because this is a mental health bosrd and it has been stated over and over that one should not jump to a conclusion about another poster and that the poster should be[... given the benifit of the doubt...] That is why I had asked you to include the 3 words, not to condem you for leaving them out, but to give you the benifit of the doubt, for the possibility existed that you may have not known that quotation marks are used to write exactly what someone else said or wrote and I was being sensitive to your feelings by making a request, not a condemnation, by asking you to add the words that you but to further the discussion with the exact words, since you used quotation marks and the deletion of the 3 words could have the effect of distorting what I had written. I do not remember writing that you should be admonished by Dr. Bob for it. But if there was a statement by me to Dr. Bob, like you are posting here to request to Dr. Bob, could you give me the URL and allow me to examine such, if it exists, and I will respond accordingly? Are you saying that Dr. Bob admonished you for leaving the words out, and thearfore he should admonish me for paraphrrasing? I did not see any such thing and if there is a post by Dr. Bob admonishing you for leaving out the 3 words, could you give the URL for such so that I could have a better understanding of what you are writing and respond accordingly?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:06:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-H1 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:44:50
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"If someone reads your words, and sees only your meaning,they are unlikely to ask for clarification as they believe they have an understanding of what was said. Not evryone asks for clarification of evry single little point."
Evryone here has the opportunity to ask for clarification and are requiered to not rush to a judgement about what is written and to give the poster in question the benifit of the doubt. That is the guidlines for discussion here, as I understand it. What others do in regards to what they read is up to them. I can only speak for myself.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:29:20
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 7:03:15
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"Lou constantly pushes people until they snap."
Could you identify what you used to make this conclusion about me? If you could, then I could reply acordingly. It is not my intention to push anyone and I am hurt by your accusation toward me.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 26, 2003, at 8:53:39
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's's post-Mo-3 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 8:29:20
Sorry Lou, but you will have to wait for replies. I do not have the strength to continue this today.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2003, at 15:24:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to yahuda's post-G3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 25, 2003, at 18:44:43
Friends,
Ayuda has made the statement that my genuiness does not mean that I am being helpfull.
Well, today, I recieved an email from a person outside of this forum that found me with infomation for them that could be extreamly helpfull to them. The emailer wrote that I was the only source of infomation relevant to her condition and that she found me doing a search and found one of my posts on this forum.
This leads to another aspect of this discussion which is [...the purpose of this forum...].
People find this forum through a search and have the opportunity to find infomation that is relevant to their condition as a [result] of Dr. Bob's establishment of this forum for his research. And as a participant here, I can contribute to the benifit of others {even outside of the discussions here}.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 13:04:13
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote that ayuda wrote,[...I believe that people that are incapable of understanding {that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with [Dr. Bob] about those parameters}, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...]. The question before us in your post is that you write that my paraphrasing of this statement by ayuda by leaving out the part enclosed by {...} cause you to associate me with [misrepresentation]. It is my understanding , by what I have been told by a communication expert that I have had review this post of yours, that your use of the word,[misrepresentation] in association with my name is distorted, misleading and innacurate.
First, the word [misrepresentation], in and of itself, has the potential to imply that there is deliberate intent to cause others to believe something that is false. This can happen if different words are used in a paraphrase, but in the case in question, only the same words were used and no words were added or substituted.
Secondly, in my paraphrase, the 3 dots indicate that there was an omission. But there could be many reasons for one to use the 3 dots, not just the reason that you wrote.
Third, the issue of whether the part left out would constitute a [material] difference in the meaning of the whole statement by ayuda in the opinion of my expert, is not relevant because the 3 dots indicate that there is something left out so that it is not a mystery to any reader. If the 3 dots were not there, then it would be possible to claim that misrepresentation was sought. But my expert said to me that {I did the proper thing} by putting the 3 dots in the paraphrease and if someone does not understand the convention of such, then I am not responsible for their lack of understanding, anymore than you would be responsible for someone's lack of understanding about the use of quotation marks, for they could request others to help them understand what they do not know, not requirer you, let's say, to not use quotation marks because they do not understand their use.
Fourthly, when my expert examined the issue of the part that is left out, the conclusion was that the meaning was {not} [materially] changed, as your post is writing about. We could take both the paraphased and the whole statement and see.
Lou
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.