![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:54:22
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-do » Jen Star, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:47:23
hi Lou,
I'd rather not do that, at this point. First I'd really like to hear your ideas about the posts and whether or not you feel that you'd like to change anything.I feel that if I start telling you what to do, before hearing your ideas and thoughts, that would be too pushy. And I really am interested in hearing YOUR opinions first! :)
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?B, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:32:23
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...do you feel defamed by this?(Dr. Hsiung suggesting not to read in the first place)...]and [...look into legal recourses...]
> > Defamation to a person can occur when one is stigmatised. The stigmatization in most jurisdictions to be illegal is not the type of defamation that I feel, although it could be in very spacific situations.
> > If one put a sign up in front of a fish store owned by a ,let's say, a Vietnamese person, and the sign said something like,[...remember,it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...], could that be defaming to the Vietnamese shop owner?
> > But let's go further. Suppose tht sign maker was the Mayor of the town.
> > Lou
> >
> Friends,
> Now let's get a little deeper.
> Suppose in the example above, the sign maker of [...remember, it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...] and then has another sign next to that sign that says something to the effect that [...you could get sick from eating the fish in this store so it could be better for you not to buy in the first place...].
> Lou
>
Friend,
Now let us go further.
Suppose in the example here that the mayor of the small fishing villiage allows people in the villiage to post their {official doctrins} of their relgious group in the town square that derides, maligns, and defames Vietnamese people, calling them all manner of filth, ect.
Then the Vietnamese fisherman complains to the mayor about the postings in the town square, and the mayor says that he will allow the postings and change the constitution of the town from that one can not post defaming posters in the town square to you can if they are quoting your church affiliation's doctrins by putting up a copy of a page from their list of doctrins.
The Vietnamese happens to be the lone dissenter to this and can not stop the postings that defame him and his family and relatives.
Then many people go to the Mayor and want the Mayor to expell the Vietnamese fisherman from the villiage. Their argument is that it would be better conducive to civic harmony and welfare if the Vietnamese fisherman is expelled from the viliage.
Lou
>
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:06:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jen Star-do » Lou Pilder, posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:54:22
That Dr Bob is not saying "Do not read Lou's posts"
Over the years I have been here, Dr Bob has said that to many, many people, about many many people.
He suggested to me, many moons ago that maybe it would be best if I didn't real x persons posts, and that person wasn't you Lou (infact I believe it was before you even joined PB).
It has been said to someone else regarding my own posts.Lou, this is not about YOU, its about the entire community.
If b finds x persons posts triggery, then maybe it is healthier to b not to read any posts by x.
Surely that is just common sense?
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:27:51
In reply to try to remember..., posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:06:08
Friends,
It is written here,[...DR. Bob is not saying do not read Lou's posts..].
Dr. Hsiung has written,[...sometimes it is more conducive to civic harmony and welfare, just not to reply, {or even (not to read) in the first place}...].
Even when he wrote that what he wrote ,[...did not come out right...], I feel that by his revision that the part,[...(not to read in the first place}...] can still be seen.
I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung delete that part in question because it can still be seen IMO, that there is the potential, IMO, for others to see a suggestion by the authority-moderator-host to the forum that there is the potential for one to be uncivil as a result of reading my posts, since Dr. Hsiung innitiated the statement from a post by another {to me}.
If we carry this further, since I do not put the subject generally in the heading strip, but that my name is seen as the poster, that there is the potnetial, IMO, for Dr. Hsiung's statement to mean to some others that if they see my name, it could be better in some way not to read my post.
The statement,[...not to read in the first place..] has the potential to carry a lot of weight to the community since it is written by the authority -moderator. IMO, there is the great potential for others then, to possibly think that since the moderator is suggesting to [...not to read in the first place...] that others could feel pressure to also [...not read in the first place....]
If there is a doubt that Dr. Hsiung is or is not telling others here that they [...not read..] then I am requesting that the statement in question be deleted.
Lou
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:41:07
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-delet?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:27:51
Would you like him to spend his time going back and deleting the probably hundreds of other times he has said that to others Lou?
This is not about you. This is about a community.
When I was at school (to use an analogy), if two of the kids didn't get on, ofthen the teacher would sit them apart. Or the teacher would suggest that "if you can't get on, simply do not talk to each other".That is how I see this.
Civil harmony is a wonderful thing, and something many of us here would like to see more of. I think it was a very sensible suggestion on Dr Bobs part, as it has been in the past (and no Lou, my life is too busy and stressful at the moment to waste time finding posts for you). I think anything that is conducive to that should be supported.
try and remember there are alot of different people here from alot of different cultures. One way to prevent upset, is to simply avoid the posts by people who upset you.
Out of interest, and I really would like you to answer this - why have you never complained about Dr Bob suggesting this in the past? he has suggested it to me, regarding your posts in the past. Why now?
Unfortunately, I'm not strong enough to do to ignore your posts.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:00:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-delet? » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:41:07
Friends,
It is written here,[...would you like him to spend his(Dr. Hsiung's) time to go back and delete...{100s of times}
I think that if Dr. Hsiung deletes the statement in question here, that that could be sufficiant.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:08:51
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?C, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
Lou - I'm having a problem with your Vietnamese fisherman analogy.
Ok, more than one problem.
First - the analogy seems to imply that your 'mayor' is posting those signs merely because the fish shop owner is Vietnamese. This is, to me at least, a discrimination against him merely because of *who* he is.
I see the next logical thought coming from that analogy that you believe Dr. Bob is saying 'not read' your posts because you are a Jew - meaning *who* you are.
This would make the suggestion about *you* when it is in fact about how *others* react to you. Not the same.
Second - the mayor in your analogy is telling people not to shop there. Dr. Bob only suggested that if a person reacts so strongly to your posts that he can't control himself that an *option* is to not read them.
And as the links I gave you show - it is advice that he has used on multiple occasions, to multiple people having reactions to multiple posters.
I don't see how it can be extended to be against you personally.
And - I'm not trying to say your feelings aren't valid. I'm just trying to show you things that might help mitigate those feelings so you won't feel so bad.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:13:08
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-100s?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:00:02
Dr. Bob doesn't delete posts unless they are made by a person posting while blocked.
I, personally, am very glad of this and would probably not be here if he did delete things.
The worse thing I can imagine would be to have things disappear. On a logical level, I believe that it would create revisionist history, something I abhor.
On an emotional level, to me it would be as disconcerting as being in an earthquake. I would never be able to trust that I am seeing a stable picture.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:28:26
In reply to Re: I see a problem with the logic here » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:08:51
> Lou - I'm having a problem with your Vietnamese fisherman analogy.
>
> Ok, more than one problem.
>
> First - the analogy seems to imply that your 'mayor' is posting those signs merely because the fish shop owner is Vietnamese. This is, to me at least, a discrimination against him merely because of *who* he is.
>
> I see the next logical thought coming from that analogy that you believe Dr. Bob is saying 'not read' your posts because you are a Jew - meaning *who* you are.
>
> This would make the suggestion about *you* when it is in fact about how *others* react to you. Not the same.
>
> Second - the mayor in your analogy is telling people not to shop there. Dr. Bob only suggested that if a person reacts so strongly to your posts that he can't control himself that an *option* is to not read them.
>
> And as the links I gave you show - it is advice that he has used on multiple occasions, to multiple people having reactions to multiple posters.
>
> I don't see how it can be extended to be against you personally.
>
> And - I'm not trying to say your feelings aren't valid. I'm just trying to show you things that might help mitigate those feelings so you won't feel so bad.AAM,
You wrote,[...seems to inply that the "mayor" is posting those signs mearly {because} the fish shop owner is Vietnamese...].
Sorry, but that is not my intention and I do not believe that I wrote that the mayor was posting the signs {because} he was Vietnamese.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:31:34
In reply to Re: Deleting posts » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:13:08
AM,
YOu wrote,[..Dr Bob does not delete posts...]
Sorry, but are there not here many posts deleted here that are not from a blocked poster?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:46:26
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:31:34
> AM,
> YOu wrote,[..Dr Bob does not delete posts...]
> Sorry, but are there not here many posts deleted here that are not from a blocked poster?
> LouAM,
Did not Dr. Hsiung recently delete his own statement about Jean Jacques Rouessau's statement that [...whosoever dares say, Outside the Church is no salvation...driven from...]?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:55:04
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd?B, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:46:26
I am not sure which statememt you say he deleted.
Was it the link on the faith board?
It's posts that I don't think he deletes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd?B » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:55:04
Am,
You wrote,[...its posts that I do not think he deletes...].
The part that I am requesting to be deleted is what DR. Hsiung wrote ,in part,[...not to ...read in the first place...].
In the faith board post, Dr. Hsiung deleted a part of Jean Jacques Rouesseau's statement that was posted by Dr. Hsiung, not another poster.
But are there not posts by posters also deleted here that are not from those blocked?
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:34:39
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dele? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:14
Hi Lou,
I'm confused, and I could be totally wrong here. But, as Mel is saying, I also thought what Dr. Bob removed was from the intro to the Faith board page, not anything within an actual post of his. Isn't that right?
I was going to ask for a link to the actual post, if I'm mistaken...but obviously if you are correct and it was deleted you can't do that...but then I think you're saying only "part" was deleted?
I also in the time I've been here (about a year) don't recall Dr. Bob deleting any whole posts - ever - unless made by blocked posters. Only exception would be using asterisks or "____" when posters mention certain things about drugs (specific dosages, etc.), that involve ways to possibly overdose/harm yourself.
Can you describe any situation you recall where he's deleted posts, or portions of posts, from someone who wasn't blocked?
If you can't, I understand. It's time consuming and there are years of history here. Just trying to learn and get clarification :-)
Thanks for reading, Lou.
Posted by Bobby on July 15, 2005, at 12:35:37
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dele? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:14
while not blocked.
Posted by Racer on July 15, 2005, at 12:48:23
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?C, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
> > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...do you feel defamed by this?(Dr. Hsiung suggesting not to read in the first place)...]and [...look into legal recourses...]
> > > Defamation to a person can occur when one is stigmatised. The stigmatization in most jurisdictions to be illegal is not the type of defamation that I feel, although it could be in very spacific situations.
> > > If one put a sign up in front of a fish store owned by a ,let's say, a Vietnamese person, and the sign said something like,[...remember,it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...], could that be defaming to the Vietnamese shop owner?
> > > But let's go further. Suppose tht sign maker was the Mayor of the town.
> > > Lou
> > >
> > Friends,
> > Now let's get a little deeper.
> > Suppose in the example above, the sign maker of [...remember, it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...] and then has another sign next to that sign that says something to the effect that [...you could get sick from eating the fish in this store so it could be better for you not to buy in the first place...].
> > Lou
> >
> Friend,
> Now let us go further.
> Suppose in the example here that the mayor of the small fishing villiage allows people in the villiage to post their {official doctrins} of their relgious group in the town square that derides, maligns, and defames Vietnamese people, calling them all manner of filth, ect.
> Then the Vietnamese fisherman complains to the mayor about the postings in the town square, and the mayor says that he will allow the postings and change the constitution of the town from that one can not post defaming posters in the town square to you can if they are quoting your church affiliation's doctrins by putting up a copy of a page from their list of doctrins.
> The Vietnamese happens to be the lone dissenter to this and can not stop the postings that defame him and his family and relatives.
> Then many people go to the Mayor and want the Mayor to expell the Vietnamese fisherman from the villiage. Their argument is that it would be better conducive to civic harmony and welfare if the Vietnamese fisherman is expelled from the viliage.
> Lou
> >
>
>Let's say that a dozen people get sick because they ate shellfish from that one fish shop. Let's say that everyone who got sick from eating that shellfish was ALLERGIC to shellfish in the first place, but they go to the mayor and ask that the mayor close down the fish shop. In response to this request, from the people who are allergic to shellfish, the people who got sick after they CHOSE to eat shellfish, the people who then complained to the mayor that the fish shop owner made them get sick -- in response to this situation, the mayor posts a sign reminding people who are allergic to shellfish that they don't have to buy it from this one shop?
Take it a step farther.
Let's say that the fish shop owner then complains to the mayor that the sign might tend to defame him because he is Vietnamese?
How about we desist from analogies all together, and how about we truly move forward, rather than just saying we want to?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:50:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dele? » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:34:39
10der,
You wrote,[...removed from the intro...]
That is correct. He deleted the {part} about [...whosoever dare say...]that was in a quote by Jean Jacques Rousseau. The quote was put there by Dr. Hsiung, another poster did not post it.
In the case in point, Dr. Hsiung has placed on the board,[...not to read..in the first place...] Another poster did not post that and I am requesting that that part of what Dr. Hsiung posted be deleted.
You also wrote,[...could you ...posts deleted of posts that weere not from a blocked poster?..]
One is a post that had a link to it offered that was of a web site that IMO had statements in it that IMO could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I have tried to find it, but cannnot. That does not mean that it has been deleted, but it could be that it was or if it is found, then could it have been deleted and then replaced back?
If you can find it, look for "Randy Crow" which was the web site offered in a link.
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 15, 2005, at 12:56:10
In reply to Re: Deleting posts » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:13:08
> Dr. Bob doesn't delete posts unless they are made by a person posting while blocked.
>
> I, personally, am very glad of this and would probably not be here if he did delete things.
>
> The worse thing I can imagine would be to have things disappear. On a logical level, I believe that it would create revisionist history, something I abhor.
>
> On an emotional level, to me it would be as disconcerting as being in an earthquake. I would never be able to trust that I am seeing a stable picture.I agree absotively and posilutely!
On another bulletin board, I wrote something in response to something I read which was written about me. The administrator was contacted by the person who wrote about me in the first place, and removed the entire thread, so that my response -- a response I wrote to set the record straight -- was never seen. That bothered me enough that I have limited my participation there a very great deal.
Here, where I know that what I write will not disappear, even if I have to accept the consequences of writing it, I feel a sense of safety, a sense of trust. I value that greatly.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 15, 2005, at 13:48:22
In reply to I've had a post deleted, posted by Bobby on July 15, 2005, at 12:35:37
I have too, but it was in response to a blocked poster posting under a new name. In some cases, Dr. Bob deletes the posts from the blocked poster and the ones in response for continuity's sake. It would not make sense to have isolated posts in reply to a post remain in a thread. It would be confusing to read a response to a post that's no longer there.
At least that's my understanding of his reasoning when he deletes posts from posters who are not currently blocked.
gg
Posted by Bobby on July 15, 2005, at 14:08:47
In reply to Re: I've had a post deleted, posted by gardenergirl on July 15, 2005, at 13:48:22
hi GG,
My post was concerning a phone call between Lou and myself. He was not blocked at the time but maybe someone involved was. My memory is mush.
Thanks
Posted by Jai Narayan on July 15, 2005, at 14:59:41
In reply to Lou's apology to the forum, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 22:24:26
if you post to him you engage him...
he will respond, he is a responsive person.
to ignore him, is to "not" post to him.
leave it alone...
or engage.
simple rules.
Jai
Posted by SLS on July 15, 2005, at 16:12:08
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntiMel-TnyBnet » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:28:26
> > Lou - I'm having a problem with your Vietnamese fisherman analogy.
> >
> > Ok, more than one problem.
> >
> > First - the analogy seems to imply that your 'mayor' is posting those signs merely because the fish shop owner is Vietnamese. This is, to me at least, a discrimination against him merely because of *who* he is.
> >
> > I see the next logical thought coming from that analogy that you believe Dr. Bob is saying 'not read' your posts because you are a Jew - meaning *who* you are.
> >
> > This would make the suggestion about *you* when it is in fact about how *others* react to you. Not the same.
> >
> > Second - the mayor in your analogy is telling people not to shop there. Dr. Bob only suggested that if a person reacts so strongly to your posts that he can't control himself that an *option* is to not read them.
> >
> > And as the links I gave you show - it is advice that he has used on multiple occasions, to multiple people having reactions to multiple posters.
> >
> > I don't see how it can be extended to be against you personally.
> >
> > And - I'm not trying to say your feelings aren't valid. I'm just trying to show you things that might help mitigate those feelings so you won't feel so bad.
>
> AAM,
> You wrote,[...seems to inply that the "mayor" is posting those signs mearly {because} the fish shop owner is Vietnamese...].
> Sorry, but that is not my intention and I do not believe that I wrote that the mayor was posting the signs {because} he was Vietnamese.Yes, Mr. Pilder, but your post might have the potential to be interpreted as a defamation of the Vietnamese. The *potential*.
- Scott
Posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:47:59
In reply to Re: I've had a post deleted » gardenergirl, posted by Bobby on July 15, 2005, at 14:08:47
>
> hi GG,
> My post was concerning a phone call between Lou and myself. He was not blocked at the time but maybe someone involved was. My memory is mush.
> ThanksThat was because the thread had posts in it from a blocked poster calling themselves Aryan soldier, so the whole thread was deleted.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 17:05:11
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?C, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
Friends,
Now let us continue. Another poster here has posted that there is the potential for this example with the Vietnamese fisherman to defame Vietnamese.
It is not my intention to defame Vietnamese and I do not believe that I have posted anything that has the potential to do so.
This example comes from an actual case. It is about how "state-sponsored" {suggestions} can harm minorities.
There is a thread going on now where a poster named "so" has raised the same-like issues here. I do not think that that poster is defaming Dr. Hsiung because he/she is requesting to him for redress of his allowing another to referr in some way that Scientology is "creepy", nor do I consider the poster defaming the poster that wrote "creepy" in relation to Scientology nor do I consider the poster defaming the religion of the poster's religion that wrote,"creepy because he/she is bringing the example posted to the attention of the forum.
I think that "so" sees that if Dr. Hsiung is {allowing} the "creepy" in relation to Scientology, that there is the potential for others to have the potential to think that referring to Scientology in that manner as "creepy" {is acceptable} here by the nature of the condoning of it by the {authority} of the community, Dr. Hsiung, by him writing,[...I have let {these} go...].
Lou
Posted by Bobby on July 15, 2005, at 17:46:27
In reply to Re: I've had a post deleted » Bobby, posted by gabbii on July 15, 2005, at 16:47:59
Thanks Gabbi,
now i think a recall that thread--you have a good memory.
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.