![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 626 to 650 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-deepseet, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 10:48:55
> Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
> > Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
>
> In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
The issues here arise as a result of harm that could come to one here by defamation being allowed to stand by you.
This is different from what you posted here. The difference is that you can control what could be thought to be supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking by sanctioning defamation or not. Your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence which a reasonable reader could think that there is not an exception to allowing defamation to stand on the grounds that un sanctioned defamation could cause harm to the victim of it. It is the what you call selective enforcement which others could call discrimination that is at issue here as you combine the golden rule with "fairness" by you in your enforcement. Fairness means that enforcement is done equally as you admit is a reasonable understanding of the word. Selective enforcement could IMHO lead to a subset of readers here committing suicide. These could be the victims of un sanctioned defamation that could lead them to feel put down which could cause them to be drawn down into a vortex of depression and feelings of worthlessness and kill themselves. That is why a rule to not post what could lead one to feel put down or accused or have their faith being put down is a sound mental-health practice. To discriminate could lead those that are victims of discrimination potentially to their deaths either by their own hand or seeking drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist to come out of the depression caused by discrimination and be killed by the drugs or the drugs compel them to kill themselves or others also. This population is hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
As long as you leave your TOS as it is readers could expect safety by your rules being applied equally. If and when they find out that you do not apply your rules equally and allow anti-Semitism to stand where it is posted originally those readers could feel defrauded as they do not see any disclosure in your TOS/FAQ that you will not apply your rues equally. To many readers the equal protection of the law is an inalienable right and they could see that those in charge of enforcing rules are not following the Golden Rule if they discriminate in their enforcement of their rules. And in the case here they could see it as creating and developing hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitism and defamation can be seen as civil here where the statements are originally posted as that they could see that your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence and that there is not an excuse to allow those statements to stand un repudiated for if so it could be thought that you and your deputies of record are validating the hate.
The Golden rule is about equality. And Jefferson thought that the laws should be so that there is equal protection to all by the laws being applied equally.
For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2014, at 16:58:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ruzzul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
> > > Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
> >
> > In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
> >
> > Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The issues here arise as a result of harm that could come to one here by defamation being allowed to stand by you.
> This is different from what you posted here. The difference is that you can control what could be thought to be supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking by sanctioning defamation or not. Your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence which a reasonable reader could think that there is not an exception to allowing defamation to stand on the grounds that un sanctioned defamation could cause harm to the victim of it. It is the what you call selective enforcement which others could call discrimination that is at issue here as you combine the golden rule with "fairness" by you in your enforcement. Fairness means that enforcement is done equally as you admit is a reasonable understanding of the word. Selective enforcement could IMHO lead to a subset of readers here committing suicide. These could be the victims of un sanctioned defamation that could lead them to feel put down which could cause them to be drawn down into a vortex of depression and feelings of worthlessness and kill themselves. That is why a rule to not post what could lead one to feel put down or accused or have their faith being put down is a sound mental-health practice. To discriminate could lead those that are victims of discrimination potentially to their deaths either by their own hand or seeking drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist to come out of the depression caused by discrimination and be killed by the drugs or the drugs compel them to kill themselves or others also. This population is hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
> If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
> As long as you leave your TOS as it is readers could expect safety by your rules being applied equally. If and when they find out that you do not apply your rules equally and allow anti-Semitism to stand where it is posted originally those readers could feel defrauded as they do not see any disclosure in your TOS/FAQ that you will not apply your rues equally. To many readers the equal protection of the law is an inalienable right and they could see that those in charge of enforcing rules are not following the Golden Rule if they discriminate in their enforcement of their rules. And in the case here they could see it as creating and developing hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitism and defamation can be seen as civil here where the statements are originally posted as that they could see that your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence and that there is not an excuse to allow those statements to stand un repudiated for if so it could be thought that you and your deputies of record are validating the hate.
> The Golden rule is about equality. And Jefferson thought that the laws should be so that there is equal protection to all by the laws being applied equally.
> For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Friends
Be not deceived. What is commonly known as he Golden Rule in one popular form has its written origin in the scriptures that the Jews use. And be advised that I am prevented from posting here what I need to in order for you to be educated in this subject by me. This is because of the prohibitions to me here from Mr. Hsiung which prevents me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me.
A commonly understood interpretation of the rule may not in reality be what the rule is about. This is because the rule has in it the depth of the teachings of Judaism, of which I am prevented by Mr. Hsiung to post here.
But as the rule is commonly understood, let us say that a masochist used the rule. The masochist has in their mind to have pain inflicted to them and so they could think that pain is what they could do to others for they would welcome pain inflicted upon them as the masochist does. This is a perversion of the rule, but do into others as you would want done to you could apply.
But it is much more than that. For the verse in question in the Hebrew scriptures is not an isolated verse. The entire set of books of the scriptures that the Jews use can be connected to the rule to define what the rule really means. I am prevented from educating readers here from what has been revealed to me in this regard that I think could save your life, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions, due to the prohibitions to me here from Mr. Hsiung. And I am so sorry my friends.
But be it as it may be, you can make your own determination by using the preponderance of the evidence here. You can see the years of outstanding notifications from me to Mr. Hsiung. If those were responded to, you could have my perspective included in your making your determination. But you can't, and that could lead you to be influenced and persuaded falsely. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2014, at 23:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ruzzul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
> those that are victims of discrimination [are] hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
I agree, those who have been victims can be more vulnerable, and safety can be a greater concern of theirs.
> If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
That's a good point, there's a difference between the post and the poster.
> For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
I agree, but what if the lawyer simply asked for leniency, and the judge felt they would want to be dealt with leniently themselves?
Bob
Posted by bryte on August 6, 2014, at 23:52:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 0:01:58
> > No ... For me, it is about as amusing as watching a bull fight.
>
> Are you saying you don't feel annoyed, but amused?I wrote nothing one way or the other about anxiety I might or might not feel. I addressed amusement in terms of equivalency.
My reference to anxiety was responsive to your muse in which you seem to recognize anxiety Lou might feel, then asked if you want me amuse myself by watching a sport in which sentient beings are caused pain then attracted to repeatedly mount attacks on the source of their pain, only to have their effort to confront the source of pain frustrated.
> The shift in policy is because of a shift in philosophy.Does the shift in philosophy preclude you from honoring a request that might reduce what you see as anxiety in a person you attracted to your group, in so far as the anxiety might be a reaction to earlier policies and in so far as honoring the request would do no harm? Does some other philosophy preclude you from honoring the request?
Do you think it would cause harm to honor a request that might reduce anxiety in a situation you were instrumental in creating?
Posted by bryte on August 7, 2014, at 0:03:40
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
> ... sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
>
> BobOnly sometimes? Do those times include times when you are acting in a leadership capacity?
When you are acting as a group leader, do you want others to guess when to renounce uncivil leadership on you part? Other than discerning a leader's capricious preference, how can group members know when to renounce uncivil leadership?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 7, 2014, at 16:50:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2014, at 23:49:16
> > those that are victims of discrimination [are] hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
>
> I agree, those who have been victims can be more vulnerable, and safety can be a greater concern of theirs.
>
> > If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
>
> That's a good point, there's a difference between the post and the poster.
>
> > For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
>
> I agree, but what if the lawyer simply asked for leniency, and the judge felt they would want to be dealt with leniently themselves?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung
You wrote[...I agree...] and then you wrote [...What if...?]
What if you posted to the defamation and antisemitism that you allow here something like:
A. Readers please disregard what the statement could purport for our posting policies are that you are not to post what could lead someone to feel put down or accused or to post anything that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
B. Readers please be advised that I am allowing defamation to be posted toward Lou and also I am allowing statements that could put down Jews and could also arouse hatred toward Jews. That could lead you to think that I do not provide equal protection to Lou here. You are right.
C. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2014, at 23:15:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by bryte on August 7, 2014, at 0:03:40
> Do you think it would cause harm to honor a request that might reduce anxiety in a situation you were instrumental in creating?
Yes, that's a lot of what Lou and I have been discussing. For example:
The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068154.htmlIntervening more = trusting the community less.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069146.htmlRemoving the trigger could reinforce the wish to have triggers removed, which isn't always an option.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069148.html> > ... sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
>
> Only sometimes? Do those times include times when you are acting in a leadership capacity?Yes, only sometimes. (I was imagining being a member.)
> When you are acting as a group leader, do you want others to guess when to renounce uncivil leadership on you part? Other than discerning a leader's capricious preference, how can group members know when to renounce uncivil leadership?
That's a good question, when would you renounce what you saw as capricious, uncivil leadership, and when wouldn't you?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2014, at 1:40:08
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-14th » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 7, 2014, at 16:50:25
> What if you posted ... something like:
D. What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2014, at 17:50:13
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2014, at 23:56:51
> > You say that it is your intent to protect members, including myself, by applying your remedy to sanction statements that could put down or accuse another. But it is also then implying that if you use your option to not respond to me, that you will then not use your remedy to protect me from the stone-throwers here.
>
> 1. I do sometimes use my remedy to protect you. Most recently:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1062264.html
>
> 2. It's tricky (requires skill, knack, or caution) because if I apply my remedy, the poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> 3. It fits with that policy I like:
>
> > > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...if I apply my remedy the poster could feel that I am throwing a stone at them...].
Your statement is a reply to my request to you that as I read your reply to me,if you use your remedy to sanction defamation and anti-Semitism or other statements that could lead one to feel put down or accused, myself and others could be protected from the harm that could come from being a victim of defamation and anti-Semitism that could lead me to feel put down or accused. But it could follow that if you do not use your remedy, then one would not be protected from the harm that could come from being a victim of defamation. You go on to say that if you do apply your remedy, then the poster could feel like you are throwing a stone at them. And then you cite that it fits a policy of turning a blind eye to much.
There could be a subset of reasonable readers that could think that what you are saying here is that you could leave defamation unsanctioned if you think that the poster could think that you were throwing a stone at them. Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews. They could have a rational basis to think that because you have posted that you do not see {feeling} as justifying incivility.
[ admin 1067013 ]
These readers could also know that you have posted that members are to be civil at all times, not just some times and you TOS/FAQ states that you do enforce your rules. These readers could think that your reply here is a pretext because the site is for support and The Golden Rule is implemented in what support is. For those ignorant of Judaism, they could have a false conception of what the Golden Rule is. But those that understand the Judaism understanding of the rule, they could think that what you have written here that you say if you sanction a post the poster could think that you are throwing a stone at them so you turn a blind eye to it, to be a perversion of the mission of this site. For the facts speak for themselves. It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not. That shows that you did not consider to leave the vulgar word unsanctioned on the basis that you thought the poster could feel that you were throwing a stone at them.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2014, at 21:45:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2014, at 1:40:08
> > What if you posted ... something like:
>
> D. What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.
This means that if the defamation toward Jews and me and others is not sanctioned here by you, readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating the defamation. And some could think that you are creating and developing the defamation. They could have a rational basis to think that by the nature of your TOS/FAQ and that you say that being supportive takes precedence and to be civil at all times and for myself, that I know of no valid reason to justify incivility here in the form of defamation because your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel put down or accused..
Lou Pilder
Posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2014, at 23:15:46
> The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
Do you select whom you engage in ways that could lead that person to feel you are throwing a stone at them?
> Intervening more = trusting the community less.
Are gross measurements of more or less the only factor, or do when and where inform decisions? Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?
> Removing the trigger could reinforce the wish to have triggers removed, which isn't always an option.
Do you have any objective measure of that possibility, and a consistent policy for balancing the risk of reinforcement against the advantage of removing a trigger to which you exposed an invitee?
Posted by 10derheart on August 9, 2014, at 14:21:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:03:59
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-creat/dev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2014, at 21:45:58
> Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
> It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
>
> The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:16:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
> > The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> Do you select whom you engage in ways that could lead that person to feel you are throwing a stone at them?Yes, I select whom I sanction.
> > Intervening more = trusting the community less.
>
> Are gross measurements of more or less the only factor, or do when and where inform decisions? Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
> > Removing the trigger could reinforce the wish to have triggers removed, which isn't always an option.
>
> Do you have any objective measure of that possibility, and a consistent policy for balancing the risk of reinforcement against the advantage of removing a trigger to which you exposed an invitee?No, I don't have a measure of that possibility. Yes, my policy is to do my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 9:30:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:03:59
> > Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
>
> That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
>
> > It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
>
> I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
>
> > > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
> >
> > The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.
>
> That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...it is true that you say that the fire of hate is not contained here and can spread beyond the confines of this site...]
The truth of that could result in tragic consequences to Jews in other communities, for this site could be read by people all over the world. And there could be readers that take you at your word in your TOS/FAQ that this site is for support and education and that you use the Golden Rules in your TOS here. And more than that, you also say that you use fairness in the enforcement of your rules and in the use of the Golden Rule.
But do the facts support your claim to be fair? As long as you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you, a subset of readers could think that is false. This is supported by the fact that fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules. The concept of equal protection of the laws is the core of fairness in the U.S. constitution and other countries that used the U.S. Constitution as a basis for constructing theirs.. The use of selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination, could lead to two standards in a community so that one class of people are protected by the laws, and another class of people are not. This is well-known historically as a part of European fascism that resulted in over one hundred million deaths and counting to this day as new mass-graves are unearthed throughout Europe. The use of selective enforcement in the minds of some readers is considered by them to be a crime against humanity and is not fair.
A ubset of readers could think that it is not fair to Jews for you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated where they are originally posted and a subset of readers could see that it is plainly visible that you have not responded to my requests to act on those statements. It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
The fact that you prohibit me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me while you will not post a repudiation to the foundation of hatred toward the Jews posted here in their originality, could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is against the Jews, which is a definition of anti-Semitism, which could lead those readers to think that this is an anti-Semitic site and unfair on its face. And that there are also allowed to go un repudiated by you where defamatory posts are originally posted toward me, could lead a subset of readers to think that you are creating and developing defamation toward me which can cause harm to me as anyone else that is a victim of discrimination and defamation.
Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back. The support that those readers could see is what is plainly visible to them. And as long as they see years of outstanding notifications from me to you, they could see that what you call being fair is not consistent with community standards of fairness as exemplified by the U.S. constitution that demands equal protection of the laws and freedom of religion.
A subset of readers could consider that where religious freedom is denied, there can become stigmatization to those like myself here that is not a balm of support, but an unsound mental-health practice that is not supportive of the Golden Rule or fairness. The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 13:49:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-kstinphyr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 9:30:42
> > > Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
> >
> > That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > > It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
> >
> > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > > > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
> > >
> > > The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.
> >
> > That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...it is true that you say that the fire of hate is not contained here and can spread beyond the confines of this site...]
> The truth of that could result in tragic consequences to Jews in other communities, for this site could be read by people all over the world. And there could be readers that take you at your word in your TOS/FAQ that this site is for support and education and that you use the Golden Rules in your TOS here. And more than that, you also say that you use fairness in the enforcement of your rules and in the use of the Golden Rule.
> But do the facts support your claim to be fair? As long as you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you, a subset of readers could think that is false. This is supported by the fact that fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules. The concept of equal protection of the laws is the core of fairness in the U.S. constitution and other countries that used the U.S. Constitution as a basis for constructing theirs.. The use of selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination, could lead to two standards in a community so that one class of people are protected by the laws, and another class of people are not. This is well-known historically as a part of European fascism that resulted in over one hundred million deaths and counting to this day as new mass-graves are unearthed throughout Europe. The use of selective enforcement in the minds of some readers is considered by them to be a crime against humanity and is not fair.
> A ubset of readers could think that it is not fair to Jews for you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated where they are originally posted and a subset of readers could see that it is plainly visible that you have not responded to my requests to act on those statements. It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
> The fact that you prohibit me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me while you will not post a repudiation to the foundation of hatred toward the Jews posted here in their originality, could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is against the Jews, which is a definition of anti-Semitism, which could lead those readers to think that this is an anti-Semitic site and unfair on its face. And that there are also allowed to go un repudiated by you where defamatory posts are originally posted toward me, could lead a subset of readers to think that you are creating and developing defamation toward me which can cause harm to me as anyone else that is a victim of discrimination and defamation.
> Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back. The support that those readers could see is what is plainly visible to them. And as long as they see years of outstanding notifications from me to you, they could see that what you call being fair is not consistent with community standards of fairness as exemplified by the U.S. constitution that demands equal protection of the laws and freedom of religion.
> A subset of readers could consider that where religious freedom is denied, there can become stigmatization to those like myself here that is not a balm of support, but an unsound mental-health practice that is not supportive of the Golden Rule or fairness. The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung
You wrote[...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...].
A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned. I guess that there could be a few on the basis of human error, but not like the deliberate use of discrimination towards me by leaving anti-Semitism and defamation toward me un repudiated by you where they are originally posted as part of your policy of acting on notifications except for some of mine. There are years of those and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to remain unsanctioned.
I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you. No reply can be interpreted by a subset of readers as constituting {evasion} by you. That is not a balm to those that want for you to disclose what could cause harm to those that are uninformed by you of changes here. The failure to disclose can be thought by a subset of readers as creating and developing unsound mental-health practices that could harm readers here. They have a rational basis for thinking that because a failure to disclose could mislead readers and act on what could be harmful to them since there could be a change that is kept from them in this site which is for support and education per the Golden Rule. The Golden rule in my faith considers failure to disclose to constitute deceit and foster what is known as {ex post facto} which could IMHO lead to deaths here and life-ruining conditions by the nature that those readers could have taken you at your word and trusted you, and the revision could show that you changed something but will not tell what the change is. Then those readers could feel betrayed as seeing that your word was changed without them being allowed to know why since there is a failure to disclose.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 22:16:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:16:51
> I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
To do something objectively means to measure against an objective standard rather than to measure against personal feelings or one's own opinions. In a professional context, objective standards represent the collective opinions of trained and experience peers, contrary to capricious decisions based on self-styled fiat...
> my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good ...
Do you maintain professional liability insurance against claims of harm that might result from testing the merits of an inner sense of fairness and good on human subjects outside the purview of an institutional review board?
Do you think your active role as an administrator, and claimed right to do as you want negates protection DMCA affords to moderators on other social media sites who don't make a practice of calling at-risk invitees uncivil, but simply remove content they think might not contribute to the community purpose?
Posted by pontormo on August 11, 2014, at 22:47:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 22:16:39
I don't follow.
How does copyright infringement have any relevance to Bob's handling of content that may or may not contribute to the community purpose?
Posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 23:14:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 11, 2014, at 22:47:19
> I don't follow.
>
> How does copyright infringement have any relevance to Bob's handling of content that may or may not contribute to the community purpose?My error. That would be Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA not DMCA), which similarly shields service providers from liability for statements or content posted by users, but does not shield service providers from liability the provider "take[s] responsibility for."
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phaale, posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 13:49:42
> you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
> It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
> fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
> selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
> Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
True, it could.
> The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
> > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
>
> A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
> I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:19:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 23:14:01
> > > Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
>
> To do something objectively means to measure against an objective standard rather than to measure against personal feelings or one's own opinions.I'm not sure what an objective standard of articulation would be. But I think my answer is no:
> > > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it --Potter Stewart
> >
> > To elaborate on the above a little, I do *not* mean that I have any special gift for discerning the "true" degree of civility of anyone's comments. I just can't spell it out any better. Maybe more precise than "I know it when I see it" would be "not until I see it can I know it". Also, it's subjective. Others may know it when they see it, too, and we may disagree. So maybe even more precise would be "not until I see it can I form an opinion about it".> Do you think your active role as an administrator, and claimed right to do as you want negates protection [CDA] affords to moderators on other social media sites who don't make a practice of calling at-risk invitees uncivil, but simply remove content they think might not contribute to the community purpose?
> Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ... shields service providers from liability for statements or content posted by users, but does not shield service providers from liability the provider "take[s] responsibility for."
Sorry, did I say my role negated any protection of other moderators?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2014, at 10:08:05
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
> > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
>
> > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
>
> Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
>
> > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
>
> 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
>
> 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
>
> > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
>
> True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
>
> > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
>
> The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
>
> > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
>
> How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
>
> > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
>
> I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
>
> Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You have your archives of the notifications. You can use those to act on them according to your TOS/FAQ. One way to act on them could be to act on the most recent notifications first.
As far as that you have posted that your FAQ has been revised, there are posts from me asking you what was revised and why. Your most recent revision was August 4, 2014. Look at the bottom of this page and the bottom of your FAQ page
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html
Now there are other revisions that I am also finding and I can not find any disclosures to alert readers of what the revisions are.
Since readers may not be aware of any disclosures of specific revisions by you in your TOS/FAQ, they could be misled to act unaware of the revisions that could cause harm to them and be led to believe what is not true. I think that failure to disclose what could lead to one being misled here is important for readers to know now. I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Bryte on August 12, 2014, at 20:04:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:19:25
> I'm not sure what an objective standard of articulation would be. But I think my answer is no:
>An objective standard of articulation might comprise a standard grammar test, but to objectively articulate something could mean to articulate a matter in terms of an objective standard.
For example a police officer who objectively articulates the standard against which he cited a driver for a speeding violation would cite the driver's speed in terms of miles per hour compared to the lawful speed limit at the scene of the alleged violation. Do you understand now? All the same, I can stipulate that you already said no, you cannot objectively articulate a standard against which you make allegations of uncivil behavior.
> Sorry, did I say my role negated any protection of other moderators?
>
> BobNo. My question and observation did not in any way address civil liability of moderators, but you do raise an interesting question. Do you provide professional liability insurance to protect moderators against claims that might arise from applying your subjective policies?
Even if you did answer my question in the affirmative - that you believe yourself an exempt service provider under CDA definitions - one wonders if your member-moderators could assert the same exemption to civil liability, in so far as consumers of a service can scarcely be considered providers of a service.
The "other moderators" in my question refers to moderators at other online social networks, on other domains, such as Yahoo!, facebook or Twitter, where moderators are shielded from civil liability because their role is primarily as Internet Service Providers under CDA definitions. Your role, which involves public, published insinuation that particular invitees have not been civil, differs from those where service providers merely moderate access to a service by limiting access but do not actively engage invitees in public discourse about their conduct on the service. Interaction with a clinically licensed professional acting as moderator is not part of the service on facebook.
My question asks if you consider yourself an exempt service provider under CDA definitions?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 8:57:28
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
> > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
>
> > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
>
> Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
>
> > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
>
> 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
>
> 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
>
> > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
>
> True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
>
> > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
>
> The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
>
> > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
>
> How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
>
> > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
>
> I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
>
> Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
A subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics here. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you make up another question for yourself, that is not the question directed to you, and then answer the made-up question which a subset of readers could think that you satisfied the original question to you. There are readers that see right through that tactic, such as myself. In the case at hand here, you write,[...I see clear *vulgarity* and you do not...].
Your reply to me was a response to that I wrote that you sanction vulgar *words* and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand by you. There could be a few due to human error or negligence by you, but the policy shows that you sanction vulgar words here. I asked for you to post a URL of one that stands unsanctioned by you.
The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words. And you write,[... I see clear vulgarity and you do not...]. I do not think that my question is answered by you, for you answered a question that I did not ask to you, (which could be something like is there vulgarity seen in the same manner as years of outstanding notifications from me concerning anti-Semitism and defamation toward me, which I did not ask you) which a subset of readers that understand evasion tactics could see. The Plain Truth is that a subset of readers could think that my question is evaded and could lead to another set of readers to think that what you have written to me is a pretext to falsely justify the allowing of anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me as being justified by you on the basis that your selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination that is an abuse of power, is also used by you in relation to your rule to not post vulgar words. This could be determined by you posting a URL of one that you allowed, which you say you will not do because the poster would think that you are throwing a stone at them. But your rule is that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times. And your TOS states that you do enforce your rules so those that receive a sanction have it known to them to follow the rules, and could not think that you are throwing a stone at them. By you writing, [...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...] does not IMHO justify you refusing to delete or sanction anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me here at my request. For even if there are some vulgar words missed by you, the harm that could come to me from anti-Semitism and defamation is not negated by you allowing some vulgar words to pass your scrutiny or even for you to allow them deliberately.
The case at hand involves your allowing to be seen as civil where it is originally posted, the anti-Semitic statement:
[...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]
The statement is analogous to:
[..No Jew will enter heaven...]
and worse:
[...Only Christians will enter heaven...].
As long as you continue to attempt to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statement as to be seen as civil where it is originally posted by not posting your tag line to it to please be civil, a subset of readers could think that could be a contributing factor in the creation and development of antisemitic hate being allowed to be fostered from this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned by you, it is not against your rules and will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking and supportive. Your use of supportive in your TOS also connects The Golden Rule with it. To allow a statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being insulted, is IMHO a perversion of the rule and an insult to humanity itself.
Lou Pilder
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.