![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 13:23:48
Dr. Hsiung,
In regards to follow-ups regarding issues as per the administrative action, I am requesting that we have dialog concerning the post in question. I am not aquainted with the mechanics of redirecting the post in question with your comments and await an administrator to redirect it.
In the mean time, I read what you wrote as to mean to me IMO that there is the potential IMO that you are saying that what I wrote as a question to another poster to give the poster an opportunity to rule out what could be something that could lead one to feel put down, was leading someone to fel put down. If that be the case, then I would like to know your rational for that so that I could respond accordingly.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 13:53:47
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung regarding issues, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 13:23:48
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In regards to follow-ups regarding issues as per the administrative action, I am requesting that we have dialog concerning the post in question. I am not aquainted with the mechanics of redirecting the post in question with your comments and await an administrator to redirect it.
> In the mean time, I read what you wrote as to mean to me IMO that there is the potential IMO that you are saying that what I wrote as a question to another poster to give the poster an opportunity to rule out what could be something that could lead one to feel put down, was leading someone to fel put down. If that be the case, then I would like to know your rational for that so that I could respond accordingly.
> Lou PIlder
>
Dr. Hsiung,
If you are going to reply that my prefaceing the statement with {are you saying} is to be removed and then what is left is examined by itself, then would you not also apply that policy of yours to a statement that is prefaced with {I believe}? If not, why not?
If so, and you do not apply your rational to a statement like that, then is there not the case of there being two standards here?
I feel put down when I am subjected to a different standard than others. I feel inferior when I think that I am being subjected to what others are not subjected to and because of that I am asking for us to have dialog here concerning this.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 14:25:23
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung regarding issues-B, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 13:53:47
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > In regards to follow-ups regarding issues as per the administrative action, I am requesting that we have dialog concerning the post in question. I am not aquainted with the mechanics of redirecting the post in question with your comments and await an administrator to redirect it.
> > In the mean time, I read what you wrote as to mean to me IMO that there is the potential IMO that you are saying that what I wrote as a question to another poster to give the poster an opportunity to rule out what could be something that could lead one to feel put down, was leading someone to fel put down. If that be the case, then I would like to know your rational for that so that I could respond accordingly.
> > Lou PIlder
> >
> Dr. Hsiung,
> If you are going to reply that my prefaceing the statement with {are you saying} is to be removed and then what is left is examined by itself, then would you not also apply that policy of yours to a statement that is prefaced with {I believe}? If not, why not?
> If so, and you do not apply your rational to a statement like that, then is there not the case of there being two standards here?
> I feel put down when I am subjected to a different standard than others. I feel inferior when I think that I am being subjected to what others are not subjected to and because of that I am asking for us to have dialog here concerning this.
> Lou PIlderDR. Hsiung,
I feel put down when I read what you have posted. If you have applied a policy to me of removing a preface to a statement and then examining what is left, then I feel put down when I read the statement in question untill I find out why a statement by another here that has a preface and is not removed to have what is left examined.
I feel put down when I read that you wrote, {I think that's good} to a member that used a preface to a statement that has been used for centuries that could lead a Jew to feel put down. And you wrote to the poster,{thanks}.
Thanks? Thanks for what? I feel ashamed now when I read that. For now, if I use a preface to request for another member to rule out what IMO could lead a Jew to feel put down, I am sanctioned. But if another member uses a preface to a statment that could lead a Jew to feel put down, then this forum's owner writes {Thanks}.
I feel sickened. I came here for support and there IMO is a promise for one here to receive support. Is thanking a member that prefaces a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down with that {they believe the statment}, offering support to a Jew here?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2007, at 7:55:13
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou PIlder » rayww » Michael83, posted by Dr. Bob on February 23, 2007, at 11:44:38
> > From in the post above, I ask if it is saying any of the following:
> >
> > E. Those that keep the law given by Moses do not know the truth?
> >
> > Lou PIlder
>
> > Your comment shows no respect for Michael or Madeline.
> >
> > rayww
>
> > many religious people do not seem to understand that everything in life is not a choice.
> >
> > Michael83
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Saying that others don't understand something could lead them to feel put down, and implying that someone might be saying that others don't know the truth could lead them to feel accused.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to have follow-ups regarding the issues redirected to the administration board, I would like to have dialog concerning the issues,could you redirect this post to the administrative board so that we could continue there?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2007, at 8:21:57
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung regarding issues, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2007, at 13:23:48
> > From in the post above, I ask if it is saying any of the following:
> >
> > E. Those that keep the law given by Moses do not know the truth?
>
> you are saying that what I wrote as a question to another poster ... was leading someone to fel put down.My thinking was, if you ask someone if they're saying X is ugly, that could lead them to feel accused -- of being the kind of person who calls other people ugly.
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 9:01:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2007, at 8:21:57
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. That's all ways interesting! Would this also apply to deputies asking questions which might lead others to feel accused? When posting privately, semi-officially or officially is there a different standard?
>
> My thinking was, if you ask someone if they're saying X is ugly, that could lead them to feel accused -- of being the kind of person who calls other people ugly.
>
> Bob
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 9:54:22
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2007, at 8:21:57
> > > From in the post above, I ask if it is saying any of the following:
> > >
> > > E. Those that keep the law given by Moses do not know the truth?
> >
> > you are saying that what I wrote as a question to another poster ... was leading someone to fel put down.
>
> My thinking was, if you ask someone if they're saying X is ugly, that could lead them to feel accused -- of being the kind of person who calls other people ugly.
>
> Bob
>
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...My thinking...if you ask someone if they are saying XXX..could lead them to feel accused...of being the kind of person who calls other people XXX...]
There are many posts here that use the preface,{are you saying}in your same thinking that could have the intent to give the other person the opportunity to {rule out} what is in question, not to accuse them. IN my case here, the statement in question by the other member could have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings and I wanted to give the member the opportunity to {rule out} that potential.
Those posts were not notated by you as being uncivil so is your thinking here not the same as your thinking in those posts of the same nature?
If so, then could there be two standards here in relation to your thinking?
The new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum have given me uncertainty as to if I can postthe links to the posts that use {are you saying} and are not notated as being uncivil. Anyone can email me for those if they like or do a search.
If your thinking now is different from before, could it not be fair of you to redact the {please be civil} comment that you posted to me here concerning the use of {are you saying} and replace it with something like,[...I"m going to try something new here and from now on the use of {are you saying} as a preface is uncivil...]?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 17:44:10
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2007, at 13:45:23
> Long time, rayww.
>
> No, actually I think this is a wonderful place to duscuss confusion about feelings.
>
> It only crosses the line (my opinion) when a person sounds sure that he is right and others are wrong.
>
> It's a tough balance, and hard to remember when emotions are involved.AM,
In your discussion here with the other member, are your comments above being those of a member or a deputy?
If they are as a deputy, I am unsure if your comments are concerning the post that you asked for to be rephrased or not. If it is, I am unsure if you mean that a post that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, could be {crossing the line} only when you determine that the author of the post {sounds sure} that they are right and the other is wrong.
In my understanding of the rules here, a statement here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings {crosses the line}whether or not the author {sounds sure} that they are right and others are wrong.
I am unsure from what you wrote if from now on when you examine a post, that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings will be allowed to stand if you make a determination that the author's {sounding of surity} is the question to you or if the statement itself has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down.
I am also unsure as to what was in regards in that post in question that constituted {confusion of feelings}. If it was about the statement in question that IMO has the potentia to arrouse antisemitic feelings and the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, then what was the confusion about feelings in that post, if it was in regards to that post. If it was not in regards to that post, then could you idenetify what post it was in regards to? Sorry but could you clear up the confusion that I have here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 17:44:10
In reply to Lou's request to AM for clarification-cnfusn » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 14:29:49
> > Long time, rayww.
> >
> > No, actually I think this is a wonderful place to duscuss confusion about feelings.
> >
> > It only crosses the line (my opinion) when a person sounds sure that he is right and others are wrong.
> >
> > It's a tough balance, and hard to remember when emotions are involved.
>
> AM,
> In your discussion here with the other member, are your comments above being those of a member or a deputy?
> If they are as a deputy, I am unsure if your comments are concerning the post that you asked for to be rephrased or not. If it is, I am unsure if you mean that a post that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, could be {crossing the line} only when you determine that the author of the post {sounds sure} that they are right and the other is wrong.
> In my understanding of the rules here, a statement here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings {crosses the line}whether or not the author {sounds sure} that they are right and others are wrong.
> I am unsure from what you wrote if from now on when you examine a post, that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings will be allowed to stand if you make a determination that the author's {sounding of surity} is the question to you or if the statement itself has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down.
> I am also unsure as to what was in regards in that post in question that constituted {confusion of feelings}. If it was about the statement in question that IMO has the potentia to arrouse antisemitic feelings and the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, then what was the confusion about feelings in that post, if it was in regards to that post. If it was not in regards to that post, then could you idenetify what post it was in regards to? Sorry but could you clear up the confusion that I have here?
> Lou
>
> Am,
I have reviewed your post and it is as a deputy, not a member. It is your opinion, but it is about an opinion of administrative decisions , not a member's comments, for you state that you are useing a {balance}. The balance means that there is a decision to be made which is administrative, for a member does not make that decision to sanction, but an administrator does.
You asked the author of the post in question to rephrase as a condition to continue posting, which is as an administrator, not a member.
Sorry about that I originally had a doubt about if you were posting as a member or a deputy, for now I see that your post was about your opinion concerning a decision to sanction (crossing the line).
Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 17:44:10
In reply to Re: Please Rephrase - how about this? » madeline, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2007, at 13:42:05
> I'm sorry. I have a lot of personal stuff going on right now and I missed your rephrase.
>
> It looks good to me. Thank you for doing it so quickly.AM,
You wrote,[..it looks good to me...].
I am usure as to why saying that they believe a statement that has the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings and the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, makes the statement civil. Because as a Jew, I feel put down and devalued and inferior when I read the statement in question regardless as to if the author believes it or not.
It has been the past practice here that prefacing a statement with {I believe} does not justify what the statement could have the potential to mean if the statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.
If the adminstration has changed their policy concerning that, I am unaware of the change and if there is a change, could there not be now a change to the FAQ to say that now one can post a statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feeling or have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, if they preface the statement with {I believe]?
Lou
Posted by kid47 on March 7, 2007, at 10:55:11
In reply to Lou's request to deputy AM » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 15:04:45
Posted by AuntieMel on March 12, 2007, at 17:22:10
In reply to Haven't seen A M around in a while (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by kid47 on March 7, 2007, at 10:55:11
Posted by kid47 on March 12, 2007, at 23:23:03
In reply to Re:I'm still sort of here (nm) » kid47, posted by AuntieMel on March 12, 2007, at 17:22:10
come on out and play!!
Peace
kid
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2007, at 5:23:24
In reply to Lou's request to AM for clarification-cnfusn » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 14:29:49
It was as a deputy and a poster.
You are correct. Any remark that denegrates someone else is unacceptable even if it is stated as an opinion.
I wasn't clear about that. I was meaning "positive" comments, as in "this is the truth" should be able to be discussed as opinion or belief, not as fact.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 5:23:27
In reply to Re: Lou's request to AM for clarification-cnfusn » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2007, at 10:51:39
> It was as a deputy and a poster.
>
> You are correct. Any remark that denegrates someone else is unacceptable even if it is stated as an opinion.
>
> I wasn't clear about that. I was meaning "positive" comments, as in "this is the truth" should be able to be discussed as opinion or belief, not as fact.AM,
You wrote,[...It was as a deputy...You (Lou) are correct. Any remark that denegrates someone else is unacceptable even if it is stated as an opinion.."This is the truth" should be able to be discussed as ..a belief...].
I am unsure as to what you mean by your reply to me here about {the truth}. The rules for the forum state that uncivil posts should not be posted and that prefacing them with {I believe} does not make an uncivil statement civil. If a statement has the potential to lead one to feel put down, then as to if the poster believes it or not could still lead another to feel put down. In fact, if one states that they believe it, could that not impound the feeling of inferiority (put down) that one could feel by reading a statement that could have the potential to lead another to feel put down? The statement was asked to be rephrased as a condition for the poster to continue posting. Does that not mean that one could think that the original statement was unacceptable here, for if it was acceptable, it would not be needed to be rephrased?
The statement in question here could have various interpretations. Some of those interpretations have been used historically in state-sponsored antisemitism.
In the statement in question, there is a conjunction conjoining two statements. And the second statement uses the {came by} which is the past tense of {come} which could mean {after}.
Now gramatically, one could think that the first statement's content was not there untill {after} (came by) the second statement joined by the conjunction {but}.
As a Jew, I feel inferior (put down) when I read the statement in question because of what the grammatical structure of the statement could purport.
As to what you mean by "This is the truth", could you expound upon that some more to give more clarification of what you mean by that and redirect this to the administrative board? If you could then I could have the oportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by madeline on March 25, 2007, at 5:23:27
In reply to Lou's reply to AM-thetrth? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2007, at 6:25:41
Lou,
In some translations of the bible, that passage is actually joined by the phrase "and" instead of "but". Why? Because the two are interchangeable logically. See this link below.
Also note, that the two statements joined by either "but" or "and" are still true.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 5:23:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to AM-thetrth? - 'but vs. and', posted by madeline on March 1, 2007, at 7:16:49
> Lou,
>
> In some translations of the bible, that passage is actually joined by the phrase "and" instead of "but". Why? Because the two are interchangeable logically. See this link below.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=TMe52tjh4hMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq="difference between but"&source=web&ots=3chE_GJYhr&sig=fH7DKlWwxFqxARh4lBcL-MTzq5g
>
> Also note, that the two statements joined by either "but" or "and" are still true.madeline,
You wrote,[...some bibles.."and" instead of "but"..].
I am unsure of what you are meaning here in relation to the statement in question. Could you expound more on what you mean? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2007, at 8:04:09
In reply to Lou's reply to AM-thetrth? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2007, at 6:25:41
> As a Jew, I feel inferior (put down) when I read the statement in question because of what the grammatical structure of the statement could purport.
Lou, I think it might be a good idea to review the following post from Dr. Bob dated yesterday.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743672.html
The statement above seems similar to the statement he requested that you use the notification button about. Unless you get clarification from him differently, I would strongly suggest that you follow his request about comments regarding specific posts or specific statements made by other babblers.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 8:44:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2007, at 8:04:09
Dinah,
I do not believe that I post anything of that nature after I saw what you have posted here as to what Dr. Hsiung posted. Is not the post in question that you are referring to could have been brought over into this thread as a redirected or reposted post from what was posted on another board before Dr. Hsiung posted what you cited?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 9:16:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2007, at 8:04:09
Dinah,
I have just seen that the post that you are referring to was redirected to here and was originally posted on March 1st. You cited a post to me by Dr. Hsiung that he posted yesterday, March 24th.
I am requesting that you post a retraction to your post to me, if you mean that I have posted what Dr. Hsiung posted to me about {after} he posted to me, for I do not believe that I have done that. If you do not mean that, could you post here what you do mean?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 10:20:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2007, at 8:04:09
Dinah,
In response to the TOS here that it is fine to discuss the actions {we} take, and to discuss policy here and to have rationales posted by asking for them, I feel that your post to me here in this thread is an action by {we} since it is signed by you as a deputy acting for Dr. Hsiung.
In looking at the grammatical structure of your post to me, you write that the statement in question that you cite in the first statement in your post to me here connected to the following:
[...seems similar to the statement he requested that you use the notification button about...] Then you write,[...I would strongly suggest that you follow his request about...]. Is this not an administrative {action}?
Since you cited as your foundation for your post to me a spacific statement, I am unsure as to why you posted it again with the grammatical strcture including,[...{unless} you get clarification from him (Dr. Hsiung) differently...{you follow} his request...].
The generally accepted meaning of {unless} could also have the same meaning as {but}, and I am unsure as to what you are meaning in your post to me here for one possible meaning IMO that I have the potential IMO that am lead to believe is that since you also wrote,[...I think it is a good idea to review the following post by Dr. (Hsiung)...] that the grammatical structure of {review} and the phrase {a good idea} could have IMO various interpretations and one as being an administrative action. One of the the generally accepted meanings of {review} is that it could mean IMO that you want me to {inspect} the previous post that you cited that was from before Dr. Hsiung posted what you cited to me here. But since it was posted before Dr. Hsiung's statement to me, I am unsure as to why there is the {good idea} to {inspect} since it was already posted before Dr. Hsiung's statement to me here.
I am unsure now as to what is happening here for I am trying to abide by the rules here in particular to the TOS here that provides a means to discuss the actions of the administration and the policy and that if one wants to know the rationale for something to just ask here.
in your statement, [...the statement above seems similar to the statement he requested that you use the notificatoin button...] that statement that you cited is from before he posted to me about statement {similar} to such. And since it was posted before that, I do not understand exactly why you posted to me here about that.
Your statement to me here that includes,[...you follow his request...] has me feeling unsure as to what your post to me is about. For have I not followed his request? I am unsure as to the grammatical structure that I have an understanding of as to what the {following} is to mean or not in that the post that you cited to me.
In your statement ot me, [...it might be a good idea to review (what DR. Hsiung wrote to you yesterday)...], could there be more than one way in your opinion, that someone could feel when they read a statement like that directed to them by a member of the administration? Could there in your opinion be more than one way that the statement could be interpreted when it is directed to them by a member of the administration?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2007, at 16:37:06
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-B » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 9:16:38
Indeed you are correct, and I apologize for not noticing the redirect, but only the date.
My reminder is hereby withdrawn with apology.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
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.