![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2004, at 13:37:50
Dr. Hsiung,
In regards to the situation that you write that you have been thinking about a difference between posting and linking, let us look at the following in order for me to bring some additional light to this subject.
In the following post, your write, [...please don't post anything that is (unsupportive) even if you are quoting someone else...].
The post posted a name that could be thought of as unsupportive relative to the potential for it to , IMO, arrouse antisemitic feelings. One can click on the link and see what is in question.
Now you write that that is unsupportive, and I agree with you. I do not think that any mental health forum could deem statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to be supportive when the forum's members are a diverse population. If you look at forums that are spacifically designed to arrouse antisemitic feelings, then that could be a different situation. But this forum is not one of the nature to allow unsupportive statements as has been stated that the goal of the forum is for support and education.Let us look at the post and then continue from there.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/323027.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2004, at 14:44:56
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2004, at 13:37:50
Dr. Hsiujg,
One of my concerns about our discussion is that if something has been determined to be unsupportive here, like statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and you have written to not post those type of statements even if you are quoting someone else because you write that statements of that nature are considered to be unsupportive, then in my opinion, the {mode} used to display the potential unsupportive statement could be not relevant to it being unsupportive. For IMO, the mode does not change the content or its meaning and I believe that there is the potential for one to think that also because of what you have written as to [...even if you are quoting someone else...] in the link in the above post. I believe that if it is written something that has the potential for others to consider that the statment says that jews are filthy and full of abominations or that the jews killed Christ, to be unsupportive in any mode, be it from the poster him/her self, or if the poster offers a link to their church's bible verse that say that. I feel that when that is done,that there is the potential for some to consider that since they are posting their church's doctrins,and if they are posting that they are a member of that church, then could it not be that there is the potential to consider that they are endorsing such themselvs? You have posted links by various mental health professionals here and I feel that you are endorsing what is written by them in the link that you provide. The overiding issue here in this situation with me, and maybe not with others, is that I believe and it is my opinion that the potential is there for one to consider that the method that you are using in this particular case in question could have some to, IMO, think that the statements that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings is less of a civility issue than, lets say, using a word that means a donkey, for posters that use that word have been evicted from the forum and the poster in question has in 6 or so occasions been asked to revise the post without there being a mention by you as to the civility of the statement in the subject line.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2004, at 16:08:19
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2004, at 14:44:56
Dr Hsiung,
Another aspect of this discussion is that you have already stated that if something is in an offered link, then it is linked to the text.
In relation to that, I had requested to you to remove your link to a writing on the faith board opening page by Jean Jacques Rousseau that IMO was defaming to christians and put them down. You agreed and wrote that it is linked to the text. Then you put it in the table of contents which requiered another click to see it. This also came up in a post in question here and allowed what was posted because two clicks wre needed to see the statement in question.
This brings up the fact that you have made a change to your own policy to the poster that offered a link that had his/her church's doctrins posted as to statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings including that one reading them could think that jews are being portreyed as[... filthy, loathsome and full of all manner of abominations,...] and that there is a statement that has the potential for one to think that it is saying that the jews killed Christ.
I believe that it is different to make a change to a rule and then apply the change after it is made to future posts, than to make the change when something is already posted so that it is not subject to the rule. You wrote that you [...were thinking...]. I am requesting that you consider my viewpoint as to if you are going to impliment this policy or not.
Lou Pilder
This is the end of the 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.