![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 16, 2006, at 9:12:11
DR. Hsiung,
As to the part in the report feature that you have written that either that a post will be made in the thread in question or a reply directly to the one that reports the post will be made to them, I ask;
A. Is the reply going to be a consensus of the 6 deputies and yourself?
B. If the reply is just from one deputy, does that mean that that deputy is speaking for all the deputies and yourself and that a poll was taken between yourselves, or is the reply just that one deputies opinion?
C. Is the reply going to come via email or babblemail or either? If the reply is from a deputy, would they have to declare in their reply the way the others commented on as to if the statement in question was civil or not?
D. If the one that requests that a post be determined either civil or not via the report feature is not satisfied with one deputies remarks concerning the statement's civility, could the member email you directly and bypass the report feature to get your determination as to if the statement in question is civil or not?
E. Can the one reporting email another deputy directly to have their opinion as to if the post is civil or not?
F. Will you reverse any decision that the post is civil if a post in the {past-practice} shows that statements of that nature have previously been determined to be uncivil?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 3:06:50
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on November 16, 2006, at 9:12:11
> As to the part in the report feature that you have written that either that a post will be made in the thread in question or a reply directly to the one that reports the post will be made to them, I ask;
> A. Is the reply going to be a consensus of the 6 deputies and yourself?
> B. If the reply is just from one deputy, does that mean that that deputy is speaking for all the deputies and yourself and that a poll was taken between yourselves, or is the reply just that one deputies opinion?
> C. Is the reply going to come via email or babblemail or either? If the reply is from a deputy, would they have to declare in their reply the way the others commented on as to if the statement in question was civil or not?
> D. If the one that requests that a post be determined either civil or not via the report feature is not satisfied with one deputies remarks concerning the statement's civility, could the member email you directly and bypass the report feature to get your determination as to if the statement in question is civil or not?
> E. Can the one reporting email another deputy directly to have their opinion as to if the post is civil or not?
> F. Will you reverse any decision that the post is civil if a post in the {past-practice} shows that statements of that nature have previously been determined to be uncivil?Consider the reply to be from all of us. It could be a babblemail or, if whoever's sending it has an address, an email.
An "appeal" should go directly to me. I may or may not reverse it based on past practice.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2006, at 8:09:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 3:06:50
> > As to the part in the report feature that you have written that either that a post will be made in the thread in question or a reply directly to the one that reports the post will be made to them, I ask;
> > A. Is the reply going to be a consensus of the 6 deputies and yourself?
> > B. If the reply is just from one deputy, does that mean that that deputy is speaking for all the deputies and yourself and that a poll was taken between yourselves, or is the reply just that one deputies opinion?
> > C. Is the reply going to come via email or babblemail or either? If the reply is from a deputy, would they have to declare in their reply the way the others commented on as to if the statement in question was civil or not?
> > D. If the one that requests that a post be determined either civil or not via the report feature is not satisfied with one deputies remarks concerning the statement's civility, could the member email you directly and bypass the report feature to get your determination as to if the statement in question is civil or not?
> > E. Can the one reporting email another deputy directly to have their opinion as to if the post is civil or not?
> > F. Will you reverse any decision that the post is civil if a post in the {past-practice} shows that statements of that nature have previously been determined to be uncivil?
>
> Consider the reply to be from all of us. It could be a babblemail or, if whoever's sending it has an address, an email.
>
> An "appeal" should go directly to me. I may or may not reverse it based on past practice.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...consider the reply to be from {all} of us...]
I am requesting that you clarify the following;
A. Does that mean that >all< of the deputies gave their individual determinations to you, as to if the statement in question is civil or not, and then you determined as to if the statement was civil or not {based on the comments from the 6 deputies} as being a majority opinion?
B. Does that mean that {all} of the deputies could not have given their opinion and the decision is your own and you are speaking for all of the deputies in that they >must accept< your opinion even though some may have a different opinon than you?
C.Does that mean that there could have been a majority opinion that was different from yours and you made the determination against the majority anyway?
D. Does that mean that the determination will not be made on the basis of the opinions of the deputies, but on if the statement in question is acceptable or not in relation to your rules in the FAQ?
E. Does that mean that, if the decision >is< based upon the majority of the deputies opinions, that the policy and rules in the FAQ are secondary to the opinions of the deputies?
F. Does that mean that the opinions of each deputy will be posted so others could have a full disclosure openly on the board as to how the individual deputies think about the statement in question?
F. Does that mean something else?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on November 19, 2006, at 11:20:24
In reply to Lou's reply to DR. Hsiung's reply to Lou-snshn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2006, at 8:09:45
My guess would mean that if he disagrees, he'll say so. And that otherwise you can consider it an opinion of "Administration".
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2006, at 12:43:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to DR. Hsiung's reply to Lou-snshn » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on November 19, 2006, at 11:20:24
> My guess would mean that if he disagrees, he'll say so. And that otherwise you can consider it an opinion of "Administration".
Dinah,
In your reaponse to my post, you wrote what your guess is. Are you saying any of the folllowing?
A. If DR. Hsiung disagrees, that alone will be the determining factor . This disagreement could be;
1.That he does not agree with the deputies in their majority opinion?
2.That he does not agree with the reporter of the post in question and will allow it to stand?
3. That he does not agree with the poster's statement, and it is uncivil, regardless as to what the deputies think
4. something else
In,[...you can consider it an opinion of the "Administration"...] are you saying any of the following (if Dr. Hsiung does not disagree)(if Dr. Hsiung does agree)?
2A. The opinion of the [..."Administartion"...] is a unanimous opinion of the deputies and Dr. Hsiung?
2B. The opinion of the [..."Administration"...] could be a split opinion?
2C. The opinion of the administration is only the opinion of Dr. Hsiung regardless as to what the opinions of the deputies were?
2D. The opinion of the [..."Administration"...]is something else.
I am in particular interested in 2B. Is it 2B or not 2B?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on November 19, 2006, at 22:08:37
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah's response to Lou's post- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2006, at 12:43:50
I don't know if it matters if it's a split decision or not, Lou. If a deputy acts, it'll likely be Dr. Bob who'll override it if he chooses. And if Dr. Bob disagrees with a deputy action, it doesn't matter if all other deputies agree with the first. It's not a democracy, and what Dr. Bob thinks is what goes. If Dr. Bob feels differently than one or all deputies, Dr. Bob will be the sole determining factor.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 19, 2006, at 22:53:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah's response to Lou's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on November 19, 2006, at 22:08:37
Any of the deputies or Dr. Bob can handle a request for determination. We don't all vote before action is taken (or not taken). There are times when mulitiple opinions are presented and times when we solicit opinions from the others, but there are not "votes" on posts. There's no need for votes on requests. It's not "opinions" that matter. Decisions are made based on applying the rules.
As Dinah said, if Dr. Bob has a different opinion on something a deputy handled, he may take different action or overturn a decision.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 20, 2006, at 13:25:44
In reply to We don't vote on every issue/request, posted by gardenergirl on November 19, 2006, at 22:53:21
Friends,
It is written here,[...we don't..vote before action is taken..multiple opinions are presented..we solicit..others..determinations are made..applying the rules...Dr.(Hsiung)..may..overturn...].
This could bring up the following situations:
A.Suppose a deputy takes the position that the post that is reported is uncivil. But another deputy, via I guess through solicitation among themselves, says that it is civil. The one deputy posts that it is uncivil. Then could not the deputy that thinks that it is civil post that they think that it {is} civil and that others are not to include that deputy in that determination? If the determination is from the "Administration", then since there could be a split in the deputies thinking, then could the determination that the statemet is uncivil could only represent possibly just one deputies opinion?
B. Looking on the other hand, a deputy thinks that the post is civil. Another deputy does not. Could not the deputy that thinks that the post is civil determine that it is civil and thearefore the deputy that thinks that it is uncivil can not post that it is uncivil?
C . If uncivil overides civil, what could be the rationale that could justify that?
D. If determinations are made by applying the rules, then could not posts that could have the rules applied to them, that have not had those rules applied to them, have a note posted in the thread that they appear that there was a rule that could have been applied to them and the rule ws not applied?
Lou
Posted by Jost on November 20, 2006, at 16:18:55
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on November 20, 2006, at 13:25:44
Lou, I don't know if one can take Bob's statement of rules for Psychobabble as a serious enough attempt to codify the principles of governance if this board.
If you do, as the following citation from "Talumic Method" by H. A. Wolfson makes me worry, I hope you aren't too frustrated by the fact that he, the deputies, and others here aren't prepared to engage in that sort of analysis of the text.
Jost
TALMUDIC METHOD
Harry Austryn Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1929)"In the Talmudic method of text study, the starting point is the principle that any text that is deemed worthy of serious study must be assumed to have been written with such care and precision that every term,expression, generalization or exception is significant not so much for what it states as for what it implies. The contents of ideas as well as the diction and phraseology in which they are clothed are to enter into the reasoning....
...This attitude toward texts had its necessary concomitant in what may again be called the Talmudic hypothetico-deductive method of text interpretation. Confronted with a statement on any subject, the Talmudic student will proceed to raise a series of questions before he satisfies himself of having understood its full meaning. If the statement is not clear enough, he will ask, 'What does the author intend to say here?' If it is too obvious, he will again ask, 'It is too plain, why then expressly say it?' If it is a statement of fact or of a concrete instance, he will then ask, 'What underlying principle does it involve?' If it is broad generalization, he will want to know exactly how much it is to include; and if it is an exception to a general rule, he will want to know how much it is to exclude. He will furthermore want to know all the circumstances under which a certain statement is true, and what qualifications are permissible....
...Statements apparently contradictory to each other will be reconciled by the discovery of some subtle distinction, and statements apparently irrelevant to each other will be subtly analyzed into their ultimate elements and shown to contain some common underlying principle. The harmonization of apparent contradictions and the interlinking of apparent irrelevancies are two characteristic features of the Talmudic method of text study. And similarly every other phenomenon about the text becomes a matter of investigation. Why does the author use one word rather than another? What need was there for the mentioning of a specific instance as an illustration? Do certain authorities differ or not? If they do, why do they differ?"
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 20, 2006, at 19:37:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of gg's post, posted by Jost on November 20, 2006, at 16:18:55
Jost,
You wrote,[...Lou,...rules..serious enough..principles of governess...if you do..makes me worry..he and the deputies..arn't prepared..in that sort of analysis of the {text}...],[...the Talmudic method...].
The Talmudic method is IMO a very good method for to >study< a {text}. A {text} is generally a work of some sort in writing and the study is usually of the original or best copy of the work. The work is usually from an authority.
As to if Psycho-Babble represents a {text}, and could be studied, I think that it can be seen that way depending on what one is studying in the pages of what is printed.
So if one is studying the pages as a {text}, then a method of study by the student could be used. The {method} is one that each individual student uses that they prefer. One such method is the Talmudic method. I find no fault with the Talmudic method for it is used by scholars since ancient times and is used today.
The Talmudic method is used by many to learn what is in {scripture}. I do not consider the pages here to be scripture, but I do see where the Talmudic method could be used to understand a particular way of {thinking} that may be promulgated in the pages by the rules of the owner and how those rules are applied, or not applied, by the owner and his deputies. The Talmudic method is used to study to find out meaning. I rejoice in finding meaning in any venue.
Lou
Posted by Jost on November 21, 2006, at 10:38:12
In reply to Lou's reply to Jost- » Jost, posted by Lou Pilder on November 20, 2006, at 19:37:00
Do you find yourself using the Talmudic method, or attracted to it?
Jost
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.