![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 256 to 280 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:25:23
In reply to Lou's rsponse to TexasChick's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:14:37
> TC,
> The aspect of that statemets here that could arrouse antisemitic feelings or accuse the Jews of killing Christ have a great effect on my being a member here and cause me great sorrow when Dr. Hsiung has allowed them to stay on the forum without sanction as I would be sanctioned.
> And is this not two standards? Are two standards civil or supportive? I am not allowed to post those URLs of the quotes and statements by the nature of the new rule that was made right before I re- entered the forum. But many have emailed me for them and one email to me today expresses that I am correct here. But now I have to stop. You see, I can not post now like others and have to stop. But will I be allowed to continue? There is much more if someone posts. Dinah said that she would post in any of my threads to allow me to continue.
> LouI'm still not clear on if you think the rule is because of you. Is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to understand.
As for the whole antisemic thing, I don't really understand where that's coming from. But I'm basically colorblind when it comes to race, so I REALLY don't understand the Jewish prejudice thing since yall don't look different. As far as I'm concerned, we all come down to the same origins, so what's the difference?
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:26:25
In reply to Uh, oh, third post, unless Lou get here first!!!, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:12:28
TC,
What you did could happen. But more so, some others think that the rule is 3 posts, not 4. This is seen in a blog and I am not the maker of it;
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:29:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:21:55
I think that means we're psychically connected somehow! Just kidding. I really have no urge to search the archives, I try to keep an open mind on most things and not make rash decisions. I decide for myself.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is if YOU think this rule applies to you. Not that its a big deal or anything, I was just trying to understand where you're coming from.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:32:55
In reply to Second off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:25:23
TC,
You wrote,[...I do not understand the antisemitic thing...]
One major issue is that there are posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that DR. Hsiung is unwilling to sanction. This could lead others to think that those state,ments are civil by the nature that they are being allowe to be posted without the poster told to be civil. Tic s then could give rise to others potentially thinking that in Dr. Hsiung's thinking, it is civl to post such. This then has the potential to defame Jews and me as a Jew onthe forum. The fact that Dr. Hsiung's rule prohibit the posting of what could put down those of other faiths could be seen as a rule that Jews are not protected by, by the nature of his unwillingness to apply his rules equally.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:34:55
In reply to We're crossing posts! » Lou Pilder, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:29:59
TC,
I am asking others to make their own determination from what is in thhe archives.
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:35:06
In reply to Re: Uh, oh, third post, unless Lou get here first!!! » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:26:25
I thought it meant no more than 3 posts! Just goes to show you, you never know how people are going to interpret the written word. We're in unexplored territory right now, eventually there will be many papers written on the Psychology of chat rooms. Until then we're on our own.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:37:56
In reply to So two posts and that's it???, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:35:06
I don't want to insult you, so forgive me in advance for my ignorance, but I just don't see how being Jewish is any different than being Italian or Catholic or something.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:39:55
In reply to Re: So two posts and that's it???, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:37:56
That was just some free flowing thought going on there.
-T
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 20:44:33
In reply to First off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:19:32
> ... my statement above was supposed to lighten the mood, but I now see it could be viewed as a taunt to the people who are for the 3 post rule. So I truly apologize for that. You all know me. I tend to say stupid things when trying to be funny. I don't ever intentionally insult someone, so it doesn't always occur to me that my words could be taken wrong.
The issue regarding the limiting of consecutive posting was contentious and drew heated debate. I believe that it was after much deliberation and with much reluctance that Dr. Bob decided to implement a 3 consecutive post limit. For the most part, repetitive consecutive posting has not been a problem, and the need for a limit is not normally apparant. However, I think certain historic posting behaviors demonstrated a need for a change in posting policy. It is not important who was responsible for these behaviors. Once the need for change was demonstrated, it no longer mattered.
- Scott
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:47:52
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChic's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 19:43:33
> You have brought up many essential points involving this rule made here. First, you say do not understand the reasoning behind this rule...]
> Then could we not seek to determine if the rule was targeted to one individual or not? And could that individual be me? What does the record show? And if so, why me?
I just reread this post and got some of what you were saying. You said brought up many essential points involving this rule made here, I didn't catch that the first time. People, like me, tend to scan over posts quickly. And frankly, I'm REALLY tired after a hard day at work, and have had three screwdrivers. So I may miss things here and there.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:49:13
In reply to Re: So two posts and that's it???, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:37:56
> I don't want to insult you, so forgive me in advance for my ignorance, but I just don't see how being Jewish is any different than being Italian or Catholic or something.
>
> -TTC,
You brought up the crux if the issue. You see, you say[...I..don't see how being Jewish is any different than...]
That is the crux of this issue. In a mental health forum you could expect that to be a sound mental health priciple? So if the Jewsish poster is traeted diferently as to that statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are not sanctioned, and statements that put down other faith are, then could that , to you, be an unsound mental health practice?
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:27
In reply to Re: First off... » TexasChic, posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 20:44:33
> The issue regarding the limiting of consecutive posting was contentious and drew heated debate. I believe that it was after much deliberation and with much reluctance that Dr. Bob decided to implement a 3 consecutive post limit. For the most part, repetitive consecutive posting has not been a problem, and the need for a limit is not normally apparant. However, I think certain historic posting behaviors demonstrated a need for a change in posting policy. It is not important who was responsible for these behaviors. Once the need for change was demonstrated, it no longer mattered.
I get that, I just feel that this situation may possibly have a better solution than making a rule. It reminds me of when people make a law about something they don't agree with, but don't question whether making a law is actually the right solution. God, I hope that doesn't sound bad. There's a reason I avoid admin. Its too difficult to have a conflicting conversation. Not because we're too anal to have a civil conversation, but because it is SO EASY to misinterpret the written word. There are no expressions, tone, or body language involved. It is unbelievingly easy to interpret what someone says in an entirely different way than they intended it.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to TexasChic's post » Lou Pilder, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:47:52
TC,
If you look at the archives, you will see how I am able to uncover what could hve the potential to put down Jews. And one definition of antisemitism is if it puts down Jews.
I used very small points and each point came from the previous point. No one could see it untill I got to the 10th , I belive post. But I did show that the statement in question could arrouse antisemitic feelings. Could it not be that others were watching the unfolding to uncover the put down to Jews? And that is why they did not post?
So if I am limited to 3, then I am not also limited to uncover what others can not see?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 21:02:42
In reply to Re: First off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:27
TC,
yOu have brought up the crux of the issue.
You see, it is so easy to misinterpret, that I break down thought into the smallest that I can so that others may not misinterpret. The more than 3 occures because of interest, IMO, not disinterest. People wait for more infomstion from me.
I just received another emsai today from someone tht saw my series of posts that helped him. This was before the rule that prohibits 4 consecutive posts. I was able to break down to what he understood. Now I have made a great friend.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 21:09:54
In reply to Re: First off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:27
TC,
In another emil to me, the person said thst others can go to another discussion from yours. They do not have to be made to have to be able to have less than 4 consecutive posts showu=ing if that bothers them. They can go elseware. There are 100s of discussions going on on many boards, so why is it important for me to be restrained in my posting 4 consecutive posts.
Look in the archives and you will see how this rule was started here.
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 21:11:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to TexasChic's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:31
I see what you're saying. You want to be able to fully express what you are thinking so that others can understand what you're talking about. (I presume to think that's what you mean). But you know, you're never going to convince everyone no matter what. You may not even be able to convince ANYONE, but that doesn't mean you're wrong, just that other people aren't getting it (maybe rather than avoiding it?). And if someone is actually that kind of hateful person, I believe they will eventually reveal themselves for who they are in other ways. Sometimes you just have to wait for fate to take care of itself. I have seen it happen in a major way. After I was majorly wronged, I avoided retribution, or even defending myself, because I believed the person would get what was coming to them no matter what I did. And the other person ended up having very bad things happen to her. I however, could feel proud I didn't sink to her level, and am not only a better person for it, but have had positive things I never dreamed of happen. I don't know if its really 'karma' or 'fate', but regardless, keeping a positive mind frame definitely made a difference in how things turned out turned out for me.
-T
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 21:12:33
In reply to Re: First off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:56:27
> > The issue regarding the limiting of consecutive posting was contentious and drew heated debate. I believe that it was after much deliberation and with much reluctance that Dr. Bob decided to implement a 3 consecutive post limit. For the most part, repetitive consecutive posting has not been a problem, and the need for a limit is not normally apparant. However, I think certain historic posting behaviors demonstrated a need for a change in posting policy. It is not important who was responsible for these behaviors. Once the need for change was demonstrated, it no longer mattered.
> I get that, I just feel that this situation may possibly have a better solution than making a rule. It reminds me of when people make a law about something they don't agree with, but don't question whether making a law is actually the right solution.I don't think there are any real winners here.
- Scott
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 21:22:31
In reply to Re: First off... » TexasChic, posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 21:12:33
You're right. I think everyone has good intentions on this subject. Its just one of those things. But if I start getting PBC's or get blocked for innocently posting more than 3 (or is it 2) posts, it will definitely influence my continuing to post here. I don't know, maybe I would get over it, but I just don't think the number of posts is a good enough reason to get in trouble. How about, excessive, repetitive arguement of a nature that is offensive or upsetting to others. And even then, not a ban, but maybe a PERSONAL email to let the person know why they may be stirring things up. Why don't we have personal PBC's anyway? I think when people get upset about these things, its usually because of being imbarrassed in front of everyone.
-T.
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 21:29:16
In reply to Re: First off... » SLS, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 21:22:31
I hope my words had a positive influence rather than a negative one. I know I am more emotional than the average person, as are alot of people here. Because of our way of so acutely tuning into people's feelings, its very easy to get all upset. But I was just trying to help and probably won't post here again anytime soon. It's too stressful for me to stay in admin for an extended period of time. See me in Social.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 22:29:06
In reply to Lou's reply » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 21:09:54
Friends,
I suggest that the rule here be dismantled and its parts examined and reassembled.
Let us lookat all the parts
A.consecutive posts
b.how those posts occurred
C.what is not acceptable
I suggest that we agree that if there are consecutive posts, that they are there because no other person responded between, not that the poster told others to not respond.
If those posts are connected to each other in some relevance, then they are acceptable speech. This means that there could be 10 consecutive posts if they are connected in relevance.The consecutivness means that no other member posted between, not that the poster told others to not post.
Thearfore, I consider it to be reasonable to examine consecutive posts to see if they are reletivly connected, and thearfore acceptable, for others could if they wanted to, post at their will between.
So this brings up that my posts would be acceptable if the posts were connected in relevance. What would not be acceptable would be posts that are random in nature, with no connectivness and was just someone posting without purpose. But would that not also be relevant in a mental health forum?
You see, the restraining of members to speak in a group has relevance if the group is self-contained. Like a classroom or court house.
But this forum is an open forum, so that one person's posts do not in any way stop another from posting. In a classroom, only one person at a time to speak makes sense. In a court, that also makes sense. But this is a forum with many boards and one person speaking does not prevent any others from speaking. They can start a new thread of their own.
Thearfore, I am suggesting that the rule be abolished immediatly and rebuilt part by part, one piece at a time.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 17, 2006, at 23:41:37
In reply to Lou's solution to this issue, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 22:29:06
I'm not saying that it's not okay to discuss it. But I do think that it might be useful for anyone participating in this discussion to know that the rule has been discussed again recently, both on the boards and off. And despite the objections voiced about it, Dr. Bob decided to retain the rule.
And incidentally, the rule states that posting *more than 3* consecutive posts or threads would not be considered civil.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674603.html
regards,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 18, 2006, at 0:01:00
In reply to Lou's rsponse to TexasChick's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:14:37
> The aspect of that statemets here ... have a great effect on my being a member here and cause me great sorrow ... .Lou,
Keeping in mind that the idea here is support and not posting anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, would you please rephrase the above?If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
deputy gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 7:53:26
In reply to Please rephrase this » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 18, 2006, at 0:01:00
gg,
The statement in question is an I-statement that could need some revision, I agree.
In an I-ststament, let us look at the FAQ as it gives an example that is an I-statement."When I miss out on seeing you I feel hurt and what I'd like is to have contact with you when you are out of town."
So looking at the statement in question,
[...The aspect of that statements here...have a great effect on my being a member here and cause me great sorrow...].Using the example in the FAQ the, one way the rephrasing could be is;
[...When I see those statements here, {I feel sorrow}...] rather than cause sorrow.
My apology and I appreciate your concern to use I-statements and agree with you that this is a good thing topoint out here
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 18, 2006, at 9:41:08
In reply to Please rephrase this-Lou's rephrase » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 7:53:26
It indeed was the word "cause" that caught my attention.
regards,
gg
Posted by Jost on August 18, 2006, at 11:06:11
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
> TC,
> In examining all what is behind this rule, I have not yet posted what I think is plainly visible as to why this rule was made here. Tyhis could be so shocking that I have waited to this time to post what is plainly visible.
> You see, first, it is a well-known fact here that I have a rare neurological affliction that impairs my spelling and writing. This is all connected to my hearing, like Ludwig von Beethoven. It is all related to music and math and can cause me to not remember some time and to have sensual problems that could cause me to not remember rules that are arbitrary, caprecious or discriminatory, also, because I repress those rules because of the great pain they cause me by my thinking that the rule was made to me, for I have felt the lash of discrimination and that sensitivity is plainly visible. So the more rules to me, the more likely I will not remember them all and stumble and be expelled for a year. And if I am subjected to extreme humiliation, such as mocking or riducule, or being bullied or ganged up on, or being subjected to antisemitic defamation as being a Jew, I can not rememeber all the rules to me even more so and fall into posting more than 3 consecutive posts, eventually....
> LouHi, Lou.
Could you explain a little more about how this condition affects your posting on Babble?
Would it be possible to write individual posts over the course of several sittings, so that instead of writing and then posting, you could write, and put what you've written aside. Then you could come back to it and write some more. Then each post would include more of what you want to say,
That way, you could:
--organize your ideas
--rephrase or re-construct the paragraphs, so they read more easily
--do any other editing, including making sure each idea is only stated once
-- include more ideas than if you post each time you sit down, and then have many postsMany posts can be harder to follow, and may cause you to repeat certain ideas, instead of moving to the next idea.
This repeating of ideas that are very important to you may also be confusing to others. I've felt somewhat confused in reading certain things several times.
I hope to see you take advantage of Psychobabble and feel more at ease and more accepted here.
Jost
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.