![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:26:23
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-jefrsn, posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 21:43:38
Hi Lou,
As has been stated before and as is written in the information about posting on this site, we do not have absolute freedom of speech here. This is not a nation. This is Dr. Bob's site.His house, his rules.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 6:51:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-jefrsn » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:26:23
> Hi Lou,
> As has been stated before and as is written in the information about posting on this site, we do not have absolute freedom of speech here. This is not a nation. This is Dr. Bob's site.
>
> His house, his rules.
>
> gg
Gardenergirl,
You wrote,[..his (Dr. Hsiung) house, his rules...]Are you saying in what you wrote above that Dr. Hsiung can make any rule that he wants to?
Can he make a rule that has the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me or another? Can he make a rule that could have the potential to defame me or another here? Can he write things here that have the potential to defame me or another here? Can he write that the foundation of my faith, which is the same foundation of jewdaism and some other faiths, puts down those of other faiths and allow the foundation of christiandom to be posted without him writing that the foundation of christiandom puts down those of other faiths? Can he allow others to defame me here and have the potential of creating a hostile environment to me here? Can he allow posters to post their church's doctrines that defame jews and write that he is changing his own rule to allow that here by saying that those defamation writings about jews can be posted because they are being quoted of that poster's church doctrins and even though he writes that quoting does not allow what is defaming, he will allow the church quotes about jews anyway because the poster posted those defaming statements in a link to that churches doctrines? Can he allow a poster to over and over ridicule and insult me and defame me and bring up the horrors of nazism to me on this board without applying the sanction that he applies to me? Can he have two standards here? Can he make a rule that will restrict the liberty to address the administration as to if something written here is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum? Do you want a rule here that could have the potential to still my voice or any one elses here?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:16:27
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 6:51:21
Yep, he certainly can. And I'm glad he does not.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 15:33:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:16:27
gg,
You wrote,[...I'm glad he does not...].
Could you identify what is included in what you are glad that he does not do?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 17:44:50
In reply to what's going on around here? Do I smell bad? lol (nm), posted by Spriggy on June 17, 2005, at 17:28:53
Friends,
An aspect of this thread is that it is posted here about someone asking if they smell bad.
I am requesting that posters other than the poster of the post that writes that, write what they think that could mean {to them} when they read what the poster wrote. I am not requesting from the poster to do so, because I am interested in how others could percieve it and how it relates to them in this thread, in particular, but not limited to if the post is appropriate here.
Lou
Posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 17:53:10
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-smlbd, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 17:44:50
concerned. What I find offensive and inappropriate is Minnie's thread being highjacked with completely unrelated posts.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 17:56:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:16:27
gg,
If you reply to my request, could you consider what is in the following links and the posts that are in the thread and Dr. Hsiung's reply, if there is one? It is my understanding that when an administrator does not reply, that that has the potential to mean a reply.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428162.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428199.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428605.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429941.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/431168.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/432113.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/437401.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:14:12
In reply to Nothing wrong with Spriggy's post as far as I'm » Lou Pilder, posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 17:53:10
TamaraJ and others .
Friends, I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to reply to Tamara's post about what could have IMO the potential to be defaming to me.
You see, defamation has many definiitions. But the overiding meaning is that defamation has the potential to "lower the standing in the community" of the person that the potential defamation is directed to.
The term "hijack" has the potential to mean that I am commiting a crime here. I am not commiting a crime by requesting that others consider what I write before they post to the thread. They can still post what they want, for I am only asking for those that want to post to consider what is not seen that could be seen. After they see what I request them ti see, then they can either write what they were going to write before they read my request, or modify it. It is there choice.
It should also be noted here that the word "hijack" carries with it, to me, a far greater hurt than perhaps the poster intended, but none the less, I feel accused and put down when I read that. A hijacker, to me, is one that holds ,usually a plane, with many people abord, in fear of their lives. The hijacker sometimes want money as ransom for their lives. The hijacker somtimes wants to kill large amounts of innocent people including children to further their political goals. Sometimes the hijacker singles out one person an executes them and throws them out of the plane or boat. Thuis happened to twi jewish hosatages, just because they were jews, in a cruise ship and an airplane that I saw the graphic video of. The killer was somehow found recently in Bagdad and died in prison. I do not want to be associated in any way with the word "hijack", so could you please repect my feelings?
My friends, I am requesting that any of you do not write that I am hijacking this thread.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on June 17, 2005, at 18:17:45
In reply to Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » TamaraJ, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:14:12
You're right Minnie! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:21:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk, posted by Phillipa on June 17, 2005, at 18:17:45
Friends,
A poster writes here [...You're right Minnie...
Can anyone write here what Minnie is right about?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on June 17, 2005, at 18:40:15
In reply to Lou's reply to Phliipa's post-miniright?, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:21:21
Nope. It was a Babblemail. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 19:06:50
In reply to Lou's reply to Phliipa's post-miniright?, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:21:21
Lou, out of consideration for Minnie, could you please pose your questions in another thread.
She wanted to say Goodbye. I've shown concern for you when your posts have been joked about (within your thread) because I think it could cause intense frustration. I feel the same way about Minnie. I think it's only polite, and a small consideration to ask.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 19:17:19
In reply to Re: Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 19:06:50
Gabbi,
You wrote something like,[...out of consideeeration...would you...questions...elsware...?].
My questions are out of considertion from what others have written in the thread and replies and responses to relevant discussion here.
Are you in any way saying that I am inconsiderate? If so, I do not feel that I am being inconsiderate to anyone by being a participant in this forum's discussion and I feel put down and accused, if you are saying that I am inconsiderate to post here.
Lou
Posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 19:30:30
In reply to Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » TamaraJ, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:14:12
Lou,
I am sorry that you feel accused, put down and potentially defamed. You have asked that the word referenced in abbreviated form in the subject line of your post to me not be used again. Since I am the type of person who is generally considerate and who tries hard to respect a request that is made of her, I will not use it again. For the record, I just wanted to say that I have seen the word used on a number of occassions in reference to threads whose subject and original purpose has been changed to deal with other issues.
Tamara
Posted by rainbowbrite on June 17, 2005, at 20:16:26
In reply to Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » TamaraJ, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 18:14:12
Lou my brain capacity is not up to par tonight but I just was guilty of 'dominating' someones thread. I did it by accident. I think when you take over a thread it is taking it 'somewhere' else. Minnie's thread was directed somewhere else. She was posting to say goodbye. I feel guilty about posting to you earlier because I got distracted by the issue at hand..Minne! So I never wanted to do that. I want minnie to have her goodbye thread.
But as an outsider to this and not having the attention span today to thoroughly go through the thread unfortunatly I do have this urge to say something about my feelings on what is going on....I dont think you should take the word hi-jack as seriously as you are IMO. I think I would take it and accept it and then move on to another thread if you so chose to do for further discussion.
Becasue in My opionion...this is no longer Minnies....so that would mean it was redirected. But i would not take it too personally, really!
take care
rain
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 21:37:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » Lou Pilder, posted by rainbowbrite on June 17, 2005, at 20:16:26
> Lou my brain capacity is not up to par tonight but I just was guilty of 'dominating' someones thread. I did it by accident. I think when you take over a thread it is taking it 'somewhere' else. Minnie's thread was directed somewhere else. She was posting to say goodbye. I feel guilty about posting to you earlier because I got distracted by the issue at hand..Minne! So I never wanted to do that. I want minnie to have her goodbye thread.
> But as an outsider to this and not having the attention span today to thoroughly go through the thread unfortunatly I do have this urge to say something about my feelings on what is going on....I dont think you should take the word hi-jack as seriously as you are IMO. I think I would take it and accept it and then move on to another thread if you so chose to do for further discussion.
> Becasue in My opionion...this is no longer Minnies....so that would mean it was redirected. But i would not take it too personally, really!
> take care
> rainrainbowbright,
You wrote,[...take a thread someware else...].
It is not my intention to take the thread someware else. When Dinah and Tamara made their posts, I think that there was the potential for the thread to go someware else. My posts are an attempt by me to keep the post from going someware else because I requested that others consider things before they post that could have the potential to have the thread go someware else
Evryone can still post to Minnie as they wish after my posts and I only wanted people to consider what I wrote in their posts.
I do thank all that perhaps took my request to consider the things that I wrote in their posts.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 21:51:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » Lou Pilder, posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 19:30:30
Tamara,
You wrote that others have changed the subject to deal with other issues.
I do not think that I changed the subject to deal with other issues for it was my intention in my posts to have others consider things so that the subject would not be changed to deal with other issues. Dinah's and Tamara's posts ImO had the potential to open doors that could have the subject changed and bring in other issues and I wrote for others to consider the potential of what they write so that there could be the subject without changing it. Many people posted without changing the subject and I appreciate that.
Lou
Posted by rainbowbrite on June 17, 2005, at 21:53:15
In reply to Lou's reply to rainbowbright-ludosriht » rainbowbrite, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 21:37:34
Lou, Im sorry, I hope you are not taking me the wrong way, I did take in what your post was saying...and I appreciated that. All i was trying to say was that, maybe below a new thread could have been started asking the posters you mentioned to explain what they meant. thats all. It just seems like the thread changed its focus. Threads can get all over the place and hard to focus on if they get off track... this is coming from someone who has an incredibly difficult time following...
PS- whats ludosriht?
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 21:54:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-consdrlnks » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 17:56:17
Sorry Lou,
I don't have the time or the energy to read all those posts and think that hard about it. I don't know why Dr. Bob does not reply to all of your requests. That must be frustrating for you.gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 21:56:23
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-smlbd, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 17:44:50
Lou,
I believe Spriggy was using her humor to point out that people are leaving. It's a self-deprecating and gentle way of asking "why are people leaving?"I have no problem with it.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 22:00:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk » Lou Pilder, posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 19:30:30
> For the record, I just wanted to say that I have seen the word used on a number of occassions in reference to threads whose subject and original purpose has been changed to deal with other issues.
That's a good explanation, Tamara. Thanks for posting that. I have seen the word "hijack" used regarding internet forums to mean exactly that...changing the subject of a thread to a tangent from the original post. This is a narrow and context specific meaning of the term. It by no means is the same usage as the broad and common use which refers to a criminal act.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 22:02:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rainbowbright-ludosriht » Lou Pilder, posted by rainbowbrite on June 17, 2005, at 21:53:15
rb,
You wrote,[...thread changed its focus...].
It was not my intention to change the focus but to keep the focus. The posts by Dinah and Tamara at the bigginning, IMO, had the potential to change the focus and my requests were for others to consider things so that the focus could stay on Minnie's departure and not some other issue.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 22:06:35
In reply to Lou's reply to TamaraJ- » TamaraJ, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 21:51:24
Lou,
I do believe that the thread had been hijacked (meaning the internet usage). And this post continues that trend (sorry Minnie). Frankly I don't remember who made the first post that was not directly related to Minnie's goodbye. But many people have participated in the tangent this thread took. I do not think that anyone was saying that you were responsible for the tangent. Rather, I believe they were expressing their disappointment that the thread did change from it's original intent. I also believe that the poster (Tamara? I forget) was pointing out behavior versus making a comment about anyone's character.gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 22:09:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to TamaraJ-hijk, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 22:00:25
> > For the record, I just wanted to say that I have seen the word used on a number of occassions in reference to threads whose subject and original purpose has been changed to deal with other issues.
>
> That's a good explanation, Tamara. Thanks for posting that. I have seen the word "hijack" used regarding internet forums to mean exactly that...changing the subject of a thread to a tangent from the original post. This is a narrow and context specific meaning of the term. It by no means is the same usage as the broad and common use which refers to a criminal act.
>
> ggTo the members of this forum,
I am sincerely requesting that you stop advocating in any way that the use of the word in question is a sound mental-health practice in the context of this mental health forum.
Please see this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20040225/msgs/333497.html
Posted by rainbowbrite on June 17, 2005, at 22:13:42
In reply to Lou's reply to rainbowbright-chagfoc » rainbowbrite, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 22:02:09
please please tell me whats ludosriht is? I hate suspence.
"It was not my intention to change the focus but to keep the focus. The posts by Dinah and Tamara at the bigginning, IMO, had the potential to change the focus and my requests were for others to consider things so that the focus could stay on Minnie's departure and not some other issue."
You know what Lou, I think I may see your point the only difference is that their posts didnt really go anywhere after and they all had a good bye flavor to them...you know?
...Im not sure how I ended up over here to begin with....I try to avoid it because my poor little brain works way too hard for the fuel it has to begin with....and admin is tough on it.
But I like the idea of starting a thread below next time....dont you? at all?will you please tell me what that stuff you wrote in the subject is :-D please?
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.