![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 11:54:46
In reply to Re: please be civil » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2004, at 8:38:38
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you make a determination as to the acceptability or not of the following in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
In post 407422, the poster write, [...my comment was aimed at Lou...]
There is another type of statement that has the potential to be hurtfull to jewish people. It is not like a statement that is overt in calling someone something that is anti semitic, but has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to a jew, like myself. For instance, one could start a converstion about how they like Hitler's ideas in group of people knowing that a jew is present. This is another thing that I would like my expert to post about.
You wrote in one of my previous objections to a post [...having the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings...] by writing that you did not think it was antisemitic. I am only asking you hear to make a determination as to if these statements in question that I am requesting for you to make a determination about [has the {potential} to arrouse antisemitic feelings], not that they themselves are antisemitic, but they could be.
Lou Pilder
Posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 13:57:05
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 11:54:46
I kind of hate to jump into this fray. But Lou, you really confused me with your last post. I'm stuck in two places:
1) I also never saw anything antisemitic about Nikki's original post, and I've been hoping that you might explain exactly what part of what she said you are objecting to.
2) I'm not able to understand what type of statement might not be antisemitic itself, but might arouse antisemitic feelings. Could you give an example? Maybe using some issue other than antisemitism, if you don't want to give examples of antisemitic thinking.
Finally, while I appreciate your desire to do everything possible to fight antisemitism, and I support you in that effort, I think that there can come a point where that fight itself can take a form that oppresses other people in a similar way to what you're concerned about fighting. So, then, I would think that you would be netting a negative outcome. In my opinion, you're getting mighty close to that line here. Just something to consider, while maintaining your vigilance against a certainly very serious problem.
pegasus
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:09:41
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 13:57:05
pegasus,
You wrote,[... I never saw anything antisemitic about ...(the ) original post...].
Does the {original) post involve [... antisemitic...jewish great aunt...], ?
I could respond accordingly if you could clarify that.
You wrote, [...what ...statement...could arrouse antisemitic feelings... and not be antisemitic?...]
There are many examples that I could post here, but I think that that could be better handled by my invited expert . I could answere your question, but I believe that I would need more than 3 consecutive posts to do so here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:22:56
In reply to Lou's response to pegasus » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:09:41
pegasus,
I am not saying that these statements are antisemitic, but that they have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. These consists of more than one type. One type could have the [potential] to arrouse antisemitic feelings to a group. Another could have the[potential] to arrouse antisemitic feelings to a jew. I would need my expert to explaine this better than I could, although I feel that I could if I was not restrained by the 3-post rule.
What would you think if a poster here posted a link to the a web site that had statements that had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings? Or a bible veres that had the same potential?Do you think that it could be acceptable here to post such? Some examples could be, [..Isreal us responsible for the war in Iraq..] or, [... the jews are the crucifir\eres of Christ..], or, [...anyone that honors any other God besides Jesus is not saved...].
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on October 26, 2004, at 14:53:20
In reply to Lou's response to pegasus-B, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:22:56
....I really hate to enter into this fray. But I feel that taking a post out of someone's very emotional pain and using it to make a point (about something that I doubt was even considered, much less written with the intent to hurt anyone else) is a bit beyond the pale. I feel that I had to address this because I know that the person whose post has been dissected is very hurt and upset about this. Perhaps it might be easier, all around, if we considered the intent of the post before we take issue with it. The majority of the people who post here are seeking relief and support from something that is causing him or her pain...and naturally it's terribly upsetting when a very personal post is scrutinized so publicly on this board. I'm very, very sorry that this has happened.
Posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 15:26:00
In reply to Lou's response to pegasus-B, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:22:56
OK, I get it. That makes sense. If a person posts, say, a URL to a site with antisemitic content, I can see that that would be pretty bad.
Thanks for clarifying that.
pegasus
Posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 15:35:21
In reply to Lou's response to pegasus » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 14:09:41
Hi Lou,
You wrote:
" You wrote,[... I never saw anything antisemitic about ...(the ) original post...].
Does the {original) post involve [... antisemitic...jewish great aunt...], ?
I could respond accordingly if you could clarify that."I'm not following your syntax. I'm not sure what you want me to clarify, or what a jewish great aunt has to do with it. The post in which I couldn't find anything antisemitic, that you asked Dr. Bob to review in the first post in this thread, is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
As far as I can see in this thread, you never clarified what you found objectionable about this post.
pegasus
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 15:39:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus-B » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 15:26:00
pegasus,
You wrote, [...posts a URL that had antisemitic content..., that would be pretty bad...].
Thank you for pointing that out. You see, by pointing that out, I believe that you see the crux of this in some way and could have the potential for you to appreciate some of the other aspects of this discussion in relation to my point of view and to my feelings.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 15:52:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 15:35:21
pegasus,
You have identified the post that I had requested for you to do. You see, there are many posts involved here and the one you identified had to do with [...advocating a way to harm yourself or others...] which the poster posted about suicide and [...taking tablets to do it..] and I had asked for a clarification if that statement was acceptable inrelation to the guidlines here for the FAQ writes about that. The other part of that post involved asking for a determination on language that could be offensive to others and was asking for a determination on several phrases used because posters here have been evicted for words about the human anatomy that could be similar to the ones in the post in question and wanted to know if the particular word was or was not endorsed to be used here in the context as it was posted or not.
The other posts do not, I repeat, involve{what is antisemitic}. They involve statements {that have the potential, IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings...] and you have posted that you see the crux in this in that one case that you wrote about to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 16:03:01
In reply to Dissecting posts for dissection's sake~~~~, posted by fayeroe on October 26, 2004, at 14:53:20
fayeroe,
Please do not post to me
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407515.html
Posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 16:36:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 15:52:10
OK, so then, you are saying that you pointed out the original post that you wanted reviewed because you wanted to know whether the language used was acceptable. And you also wanted to know whether it was ok to mention specific ways of killing oneself, as that post did.
And as far as I can see, Dr. Bob never did make an assessment of those issues.
Just making sure I've got it.
pegasus
Posted by Noa on October 26, 2004, at 18:14:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 16:36:20
I am still trying to understand what has happened.
I'm still very confused about how the matter of antisemitism came into the discussion, or how Nikki's husband's great aunt's ethnicity was even brought up, or what it would have to do with this thread at all. I don't see that anywhere in these posts, and I certainly do not see anything antisemitic in the post that Lou originally requested to be reviewed (nor was there a link in that post to any website).
Also, I think some of the conflict could have been avoided in the first place if the request for determination might have said specifically something along the lines of, "although I recognize that these were written by the poster when she was in great distress, I would like to clarify whether the reference to the pills is appropriate for the board, and to clarify whether some of the language is allowable."
But I really do not see how anitsemitism came into the picture in this instance. I am Jewish and I am someone who is very alert to antisemitism and in fact have spoken up about it on this board in the past when I felt it did arise. But I can't find it in the post in question.
Posted by Noa on October 26, 2004, at 18:50:42
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus, posted by Noa on October 26, 2004, at 18:14:55
OK, to answer part of my own question...I found the reference in this thread to antisemitism and the great aunt. Here is my understanding of this:
When Lou posted a request for review of Nikki's post, he did not specify what aspect of the post was potentially a problem.
Nikki, having posted the post in an episode of great distress, felt targetted by Lou's request for determination about her post, and, I believe really did not have any idea what about her post could have been a problem for Lou.
Nikki's reaction was to post a sarcastic remark about what could possibly have been the problem with her post. This remark refers to previous interactions (before the last block) when Lou had accused Nikki of something antisemitic, (and apparently threatened legal action) that had prompted her to seriously research whether she had posted anything offensive (she learned from the organization she consulted that there hadn't been anything in her post that she would need to defend).
In response to Nikki's sarcastic reaction, Lou seems to have re-raised the issue of antisemitism, although there seems to be nothing antisemitic in her recent post.
Nikki clarified that her comment was directed at Lou individually only.
Lou seems to have percieved that Nikki's directing the remark at him is somehow antisemitic and is now requesting a guest expert on antisemitism.
My opinion: I don't see antisemitism in Nikki's comment. I only see sarcasm. I think a lot of this could have been avoided if Lou had been more specific about what aspects of the post had been questionable (he has since clarified that it was certain 'salty' words as well as reference to taking pills).
A second point where the escalation in the conflict might have been avoided is for Nikki to have refrained from making the sarcastic remark, although I understand the feelings behind it and why she was so hurt and angry.
My personal preference would have been that Lou show some acknowledgement that Nikki had written the original post in pain, because the effect, in my opinion, was that Nikki felt as though she were kicked while she was down and already injured.
I personally do not see a need to bring in an expert on antisemitism at this point. FWIW, if there ever were the need, I'd support it, but would NOT support bringing someone from the JDL (Jewish Defense League) which I personally beleive (and I acknowledge that others may have a differing view than mine) is a group with extremist tendencies. The ADL, on the other hand, (Anti-Defamation League) is a group I would feel comfortable with. But at this point in time, I don't see the need because I do not see evidence at this point of a problem with antisemitism on this board.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 26, 2004, at 19:52:49
In reply to Re: Trying to get some clarity, posted by Noa on October 26, 2004, at 18:50:42
I am thankful for this clearly stated comment. thank you for this Noa, I know it took time to articulate.
I hope that Nikki is doing alright.
I too was worried about her and this difficult post.
why does it have to be so hard?
this whole process seems so oppressive in and of itself.
I send you love and supportive energy Noa and Kikki.
Remember you are not alone in this. We are all listening.
the whole world is listening....
Jai
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 19:52:56
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 16:36:20
pegasus,
Thank you for taking the time to rightly divide the posts in question. You see, there are many posts involved here in this discussion and I feel that they need to be divided rightly in order to understand the issues accordingly and you are doing that, which I admire.
You also wrote,[...you wanted to know...and as far as I can see, Dr. Bob never did make an assessment of those issues...]. Thank you for posting that observation.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 20:26:28
In reply to Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung-3-post-exemp, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 9:22:56
Friends,
There are things in this thread that I would like to offer some clarification.
One is that I feel that it is not necessarry to list what is in the post in question that I am requesting a determination as to its acceptability or not. I feel that if I can see it, that others could also. Also, if Dr. Hsiung wanted me to write what it was that I thought needed a determination to be made about it, then I would reply to his request for discoverey. I feel that either way is acceptable based on Dr. Hsiung's own replys here about the administartive forum. I also ask for determinations becauase ther could be some inplication as to if the moderator is endorsing what is written if there is no comment about it by Dr. Hsiung. Sometimes he writes, [...I will let it stand...]or agree with me, or not reply at all. I feel that no reply at all does not mean that what is in question is acceptable , so I request that a determination be made.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 20:40:31
In reply to Lou offrs some clarification, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 20:26:28
Friends,
Another aspect that I would like to offer in reference to clarification here is that it is written in this thread that there is some type of thinking here that I am writing that I want a representative from some jewish advocacy group to be a guest expert on, perhaps, showing that such and such a post has antisemitism in it. I do not believe that is what I am asking for, for my post about the guest expert writes, [...I am requesting that you allow mw to invite a guest expert to the forum from...{that could(comment) on the post below.)...]. Any comments from the expert would be of the expert's. The expert could {comment} that the post is [such and such], or that the post is [this and that]. Either way, one of my reasons for the request was because I think that there would be no 3-post rule applied to the expert, and I have to use many more post to {comment}. If you look back at the post before my request to have the expert, it was about my restriction of the 3-post rule.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 26, 2004, at 20:55:43
In reply to Lou offers some clarification-B, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 20:40:31
I am always open to learning aobut other cultures and how interactions between them can be faciliated. I would prefer that any guest expert here not comment on specific posts, but rather provide education or information in response to questions or on a general level. I would hate for any poster to feel singled out because their post was scrutinized and commented on by a guest expert.
Also, I trust Noa's views on the ADL, so I suppose I would prefer a guest expert from there if we are to have one.
Regarding the three post rule, I have to admit, I see no reason why that should be waived for a guest expert. If the GE were responding to individual posters, than the rule doesn't apply anyway, as far as I understand it. Ms. Munro did not seem to have any difficulty with the 3 post rule in effect during her recent time here.
Just my immediate thoughts on this topic...
Oh, one more...regarding posts that may have the *potential* to arouse feelings of one type of another...I think that *potential* exists on a continuum that makes it very difficult to judge. I would hate to see posts sanctioned because of a slim potential for evoking a certain feeling. If so, I would personally feel much more restricted in posting here. But I do understand that *potential* is a subjective concept.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 21:25:17
In reply to Guest expert, posted by gardenergirl on October 26, 2004, at 20:55:43
gg,
You wrote,[...I would preferr that any guest expert...].
I would not want to invite a guest expert ot comment on any single post, but to answer questions from the group like you stated. I feel that that could facilitate an understanding about what you meant by (...potential to...). I would not suggest an expert here without my first going over with the expert concerns like yours, for I also agree with you. BUt others could also invite their own expert, with approval form Dr. Hsiung. I would need approval also for my inviteee.
But I think that restrictions to a guest be different than restrictions to posters.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:47:50
In reply to Re: guest experts, posted by NikkiT2 on October 26, 2004, at 10:44:16
> how can I ask someone not to post to me, when I am unable to post to them??
Just ask them, I guess that needs to be an exception.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:47:58
In reply to Lou's requests about antismitism- guest, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 11:26:58
> I don't believe my comment really needs an expert to explain anything to me.
>
> NikkiI was thinking the discussion would be more general than that! Sorry about not being more clear.
> One thing that I would like an expert to explaine her in relation to antisemitism is that modersn antisemitism is different from proto-nazi antisemitism.
>
> Lou PilderI'd like further discussion about a guest expert at Faith to be redirected there, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2004, at 5:48:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on October 26, 2004, at 16:36:20
> OK, so then, you are saying that you pointed out the original post that you wanted reviewed because you wanted to know whether the language used was acceptable. And you also wanted to know whether it was ok to mention specific ways of killing oneself, as that post did.
>
> And as far as I can see, Dr. Bob never did make an assessment of those issues.Sorry about not following up here. I thought the post was OK.
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on October 27, 2004, at 14:16:27
In reply to Re: Trying to get some clarity, posted by Noa on October 26, 2004, at 18:50:42
I could get my MIL to do it. She was very, very active in ADL.
BUT - the civility guidelines would have to be waived for her.
Posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 3, 2004, at 16:18:41
In reply to Re: guest expert :) » Noa, posted by AuntieMel on October 27, 2004, at 14:16:27
I read the site that there were complaints on, and I keep wondering if there is some code somewhere that I didn't see? Who is being mean? Uh? Who can possible be hurt by this posting? I feel like I sit with a bunch of question marks over my head, this is really not understandable. I have read every single post related to this subject, and I still don't understand it? What is the first complaint about? And if no one at some point had mentioned jews in the first place, I would never have guessed that it had anything to do with antisemittism? I mean, either it's is so big cultural differences between the US and Europe that its making a problem for me, or I must be plain ignorant. After 10 years at th euniversity in total with top grades I prefer the cultural explanation, but I still keep wondering... if there was something wrong with th eposting that was files in, what can then be legal to write? I tried analyzing the text word by word, and I simply couldn't find ANYTHING that could be infered as rude towards someone else, espescially towards any etnic group or something like that.
I'm not so sure I feel content about using this board anymore, I don't like a board where I have to feel such paranoia about sharing... espescially if all I say can be directed to be mean towards other people. I am scared of hurting others, if there are no acceptance of individual differences in how to write about your feelings, I'm not sure I dare writing anything... I simply don't know what is read out of what I write...
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2004, at 16:29:40
In reply to I must be stupid or something...?????????????, posted by Crazy_Charlie on November 3, 2004, at 16:18:41
CC,
You wrote, [...by this posting...?]. Could you identify the posting that you are referring to? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
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.