![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 14:23:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:07:42
I'm very busy. I work 7 days a week and don't have the time, always, to research as much as I would like. My concern would be that you might lack time to do other things that you enjoy. I know that I find myself behind at times and I miss getting to do the "fun" things I like.
Posted by SLS on November 2, 2004, at 14:27:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS-flgpol, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 13:53:54
> Let us look at the flagpole situation. Let us be in the towne meeting. It is your turn to speak. What would you say?
LouThe regulation (guidelines of civility) existed prior to the erection of the flagpole. Ignorant or not to the regulation, the erector behaved in a manner that might have represented a violation of that regulation. Whether or not there was a violation is the job of the magistrate (administrator) to determine. I don't think it is desirable to "flag" every "civil" behavior as a possible violation of every possible interpretation of every possible regulation. (Some humor was attempted in the previous sentence). It is cumbersome on the system. You may do that, of course, but it might be redundant here on Psycho-Babble as this function is already performed by the administrator.
Perhaps it would be desirable to wait 3 days before bringing to the attention of the moderator a questionable post. That would give him sufficient time to review it on his own, and avoid the redundancy and collection of unnecessary posts on the administration board. You could ask the doctor what would be a sufficient time as I don't know what his review cycle period is.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 2, 2004, at 14:31:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:17:31
> SLS,
> You wrote,[...the guidlines... have... been defined..].
> Let us look at the guidline for [...writing ways of harming yourself or others...].
> In that guidline, I requested a determination and it was determined as acceptable. Now we know that we can write that type of statement and not have the statement be deemed unacceptable.
> Lou
I understand your logic. I disagree with its necessity.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:32:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros, posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 14:23:07
fayeroe,
Thank you for being concerned about the time I spend on this forum. I will take your concern in consideration as to how much time I spend on this forum.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:36:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:32:27
I'm enjoying this discussion. It's helping me understand more what has been going on.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:38:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:32:27
Hi Lou,
I was wondering how you anticipate Babblers might use the information gained from determinations. You stated that (paraphrasing) [now we know that kind of statement is acceptable]. I do read determinations and most of your requests. However, I know I don't remember them. I still go by the civility rules when deciding whether something I want to say is within the guidelines of the site.How do you use this information you gain?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:48:21
In reply to To add to the discussion: Question for Lou, posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:38:54
gg,
You wrote,[...used infomation gained...].
Gained infomation about whatis acceptablie or not here could faccillitate better more suppotive discussions.
If a determination was that there {was} acceptability, then that could open doors that may have been thought to be previously locked. If the determiation was that it was not acceptable, then that could close doors that in this forum could be better left closed.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:53:41
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:48:21
Well, yes in theory. But I admit, I don't retain anything about the decisions, so in my case, that doesn't seem to apply. I wonder about other posters, too.
gg
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 15:13:55
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:53:41
My feelings exactly. I just go post by post. I rarely remember that someone got PBC or a "please rephrase" a day or two later.
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 15:16:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:32:27
I'm thinking of myself, but there are spells when I spend too much time here or somewhere else on the internet. I start noticing that I've neglected doing something for myself or others. I have a granddaughter that lives nearby and I tear myself away and go play with her. I do think that the diagnosis of "internet addiction" is real. Pat
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 15:17:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 14:32:27
I'll also add that I'm single and I think that I use the internet for "companionship" at times. Do you have a family, Lou?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 15:28:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response -imun -fm -pros » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 15:17:57
fayeroe,
I think that you have a good point about the time spent on anything, internet included. I know of many marriges started on the internet so I am not against innitiating companionship that way, although I think caution is to be the first thing.I have a friend that is a widower retirerd teacher and he remarried on a boat that was only for single people. Now the boat owners couldd have screened the participants in the cruise, but I do not know. I am married and have 3 children, but have been sunk previously.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 16:29:28
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on November 2, 2004, at 14:53:41
gg,
You wrote,[...I don't retain anything about the decisions...].
Perhaps after some time runs, these decisions could be incorperated into the FAQ. There, new members of the community could see more defined guidlines and members that have been here for some time that reread the FAQ could also.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 16:33:51
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 16:29:28
That makes sense. Glad you've got family, Lou. It's almost holiday time! Families getting together and parties and such!!! I love the Christmas season.
Posted by All Done on November 2, 2004, at 16:37:03
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 16:29:28
> Perhaps after some time runs, these decisions could be incorperated into the FAQ. There, new members of the community could see more defined guidlines and members that have been here for some time that reread the FAQ could also.
> LouI think it is absolutely necessary to update the FAQs to include, at the very least, the new rules pertaining to the number of posts allowed in a given situation. Typically, I don't believe ignorance is an allowable defense, but if the rules aren't even posted...
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 16:52:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS-flgpol » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 2, 2004, at 14:27:45
> > Let us look at the flagpole situation. Let us be in the towne meeting. It is your turn to speak. What would you say?
> Lou
>
> The regulation (guidelines of civility) existed prior to the erection of the flagpole. Ignorant or not to the regulation, the erector behaved in a manner that might have represented a violation of that regulation. Whether or not there was a violation is the job of the magistrate (administrator) to determine. I don't think it is desirable to "flag" every "civil" behavior as a possible violation of every possible interpretation of every possible regulation. (Some humor was attempted in the previous sentence). It is cumbersome on the system. You may do that, of course, but it might be redundant here on Psycho-Babble as this function is already performed by the administrator.
>
> Perhaps it would be desirable to wait 3 days before bringing to the attention of the moderator a questionable post. That would give him sufficient time to review it on his own, and avoid the redundancy and collection of unnecessary posts on the administration board. You could ask the doctor what would be a sufficient time as I don't know what his review cycle period is.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...the flagpole erector {might } have...]
There is the meeting to determine if erecting the flagpole is a {structure} that is not like other structures. So he thinks that he has not erectred a {structure}, hence the meeting for the determination by the towne board of directors.The mweeting is public and all those in the community have the opportunity to participate and give input for the determination to be made.
Some want the flagpole taken down. Others want it to stay.
You wrote,[...I don't think it is desirerable to "flag" evry...]. I understand your point. I think that more administatrators such as deputys could alleviate your concern. The function of the town meeting is for {any} question about something to be determined that is relevant to the rules of the community. In the Psycho-babble community, there is the administrative board that IMO parallels the town meeting.
You wrote, [...it is cumbersome on the system...]. That is true and that is why I think that we could have a need for more administrators in the form of deputys.
You wrote that the forum's administration function is already performed by the administrator. That is correct, but it it my understanding that he invites input and feedback also to aid in administration.
You wrote, [...wait 3 days...].This is a good idea and there is a discussion with me and Dr. Hsiung concerning something like that and is being developed.
Besr regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 17:00:00
In reply to Re: documenting rules - Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on November 2, 2004, at 16:37:03
AD,
You wrote,[...but if the rules arn't posted...].
I agree with you on this, but when does one reread the FAQ? NOw if there was an alert system that flashed the alert to a new change in the FAQ, that could be a solution, but could that be done here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 17:04:42
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 16:33:51
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...its almost holiday time...].
I think our ship is going off-course here. Could you redirect this part of the discussion to the social board?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 17:37:33
In reply to Re: emailing this guy, posted by nikkit2 on November 2, 2004, at 11:15:35
> > > I don't wish for them to be held up for a civility review.
> >
> > By Lou? How many times has he requested a review of a post of yours already?
>
> I no longer have the time, or inclination, to go through the past few weeks of Admin boards to count how many times it has been. Lets just say too many for me.
>
> it seems, that most (not all) of my posts aren't deemed uncivil by youThe reason I asked was, if he's requested reviews of 3 posts of yours that I didn't deem uncivil, then according to the newer 3-post rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
it would now be up to him to deal in some other way with posts by you, for example, by not even reading them.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on November 2, 2004, at 18:44:45
In reply to Re: To add to the discussion: Question for Lou » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on November 2, 2004, at 17:04:42
> fayeroe,
> You wrote,[...its almost holiday time...].
> I think our ship is going off-course here. Could you redirect this part of the discussion to the social board?
> Lou
Lou, you wrote the above.....my answer to you is, no, I won't redirect to Social. That was a small aside and I've seen much more here than that sentence. Sorry, Pat
>
Posted by Mark H. on November 2, 2004, at 18:57:01
In reply to Re: emailing this guy » nikkit2, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 17:37:33
> > > > I don't wish for them to be held up for a civility review.
> > >
> > > By Lou? How many times has he requested a review of a post of yours already?
> >
> The reason I asked was, if he's requested reviews of 3 posts of yours that I didn't deem uncivil, then according to the newer 3-post rule:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
>
> it would now be up to him to deal in some other way with posts by you, for example, by not even reading them.
>
> Bob
>Here are some of Lou's requests for determination of Nikki's posts in the last couple of months:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408290.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403854.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403973.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393755.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395314.html
I think Lou is also well past three requests for determination of posts by Scott (SLS) and rayww.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 19:22:20
In reply to Re: Lou's Requests Regarding NikkiT2 » Dr. Bob, posted by Mark H. on November 2, 2004, at 18:57:01
> Here are some of Lou's requests for determination of Nikki's posts in the last couple of months:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403854.htmlThanks, Mark.
Lou, it's now up to you to deal in some other way with posts by her, for example, by not even reading them.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 1:10:45
In reply to Re: Requests Regarding NikkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 19:22:20
Dr. Bob,
This rule is being applied retroactively?gg
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2004, at 7:34:06
In reply to Just to clarify new rule---retroactive? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 3, 2004, at 1:10:45
Apparently so. :) I can think of at least one poster I'm going to have to email about as of... NOW.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2004, at 10:45:41
In reply to Re: Requests Regarding NikkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2004, at 19:22:20
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...now it is up to you to deal in some other way...].
But you did not write why it was [...up to me to deal in some other way...]. Are you saying that this {proposed}rule concerning {3 objections per poster} is what you are referring to? If so, could you tell me when was the{proposed} rule was actually made into {a} rule and give me the URL for the post by you stateing that? I do see that you wrote,[...so {hear's an idea}, what {if} we adopt another 3-post rule?...]
The post that I am referring to starts out with {Hi, evryone} and ends up with, {Any questions? Let me know what you think...}
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
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.