![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 6:57:17
DR. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure here, and in regards to one to ask you for your rationale, the following link at the end of this post is the innitial post by me to innitiate the discussion.
I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion? If your rule is applicable here, could you state your rationale for that here?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/737156.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 14:44:10
In reply to Lou's reminder to DR. Hsiung (6), posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 6:57:17
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder procedure here, and in regards to one to ask you for your rationale, the following link at the end of this post is the innitial post by me to innitiate the discussion.
> I am also requesting that I be allowed hereto post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion? If your rule is applicable here, could you state your rationale for that here?
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/737156.html
>
Dr. Hsiung,
Your rule here is that one can not post what could have the potential to lead someone to feel put down even if they quote someone else or even if it is a belief or opinion of theirs.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in the principle that is behind your rule. For if someone is lead to feel put down I think that that could be contrapositive to the mission of the forum which is that people come here to receive/give support and education.
I think that by reading your TOS here that there could be an expectaion that one could have that that is the way that they will be treated here, as equal in regards to them receiving or giving support and education.
In discussiing your action here of posting what could have the potential IMO of being interpretted as an approval by you that one could preface a statement that has been determined by the deputy to be in need of being rephrased with {I believe}, it is my great concern that others could interpret your action to mean that similar statements of the nature of the one in question could also be approved as being prefaced with {I believe}. I am requesting that you post your rarionale here for that. If you could, thenI could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
My concern centers around your TOS that you have posted that if a member believes something, even if it in the bible,if it is uncivil, that it should not be posted here. And also, your post that you want to be fair, which the generally accepted meaning is to not have any self-interest (in moderating of the posts here) and to be impartial, and to enforce standards of civility without favoritism. This fairness that you have posted in your FAQ connects it with [...doing what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole...].
Keeping in mind your TOS here, I would think that there could be the potential IMO for one here to have an expectation that any statement posted here as unacceptable would still be unacceptable even if the author believes it. I guess the statement in question boils down to if it has the potential to put down one of another faith or not and thearfore it could be determined to be acceptable or not depending on that criteria.
The statement was aske to be rephrased which in the past meant that one could not continue posting if they did not rephrase the statement in question, I guess so that the rephrased statement could not have the potential to lead one of another faith to feel put down? I still feel inferior when I read that statement in question here, even if the author believes it or not.
The generally accepted meaning of {put down} could mean IMO that when a person reads what is in question here, that they:
A. have the potential IMO to feel inferior by the nature that their faith is being contrasted as having the potential to think that their faith is deficient to the faith being contrasted to.
B. have the potential IMO to feel that an attack to the person's dignity has been made by the nature that their faith is being writtin as having the potential IMO to mean that their faith is in some way lacking what is needed to be not obsolete.
C. feel that if the statement is allowed to stand approved, that there could be the potential IMO for an indoctrination by the administration to the members of the forum by the nature that there could be the potential for some members to think that one faith is being favored to have the foundation of their faith posted by the author writing that they believe it, where another faith is not approved to post their foundation of their faith if they believe it.
D. feel IMO that if the statement is allowed to stand as approved, that a hostil climate toward the faith that is being contrasted that could have the potential to lead one of that faith to feel put down, could have the potential to be fostered.
E. feel IMO that the perspective of the faith that the one led to feel put down by the statement in question could be defamed, which could IMO lead to the members of that faith feeling defamed.
This is connected to your posting that I would be expelled from this community if I was to post the foundation of my faith that I believe, that my God has revealed to me that He has given a commandment to me. The commandment is the foundation of the Jewish faith, it is the Jewish perspective about the service and worship of God, which is the mission of the faith forum.
If a foundation of the Christian faith, that could have the potential to lead a Jew and others that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom to feel put down, is allowed to be posted here without the author being told to be civil, then could there not be the potential for one to think that there could be the potential IMO for there to be two standards here? I guess that it might boil down to what is a foundation of the Christian faith to determine that? The foundation of a faith is what the faith is built on. Does in your opinion, the statement in question have the potential to be considered a part of what the Christian faith is built on? Are there not other faiths that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom so that they could believe that truth came by some other way?
Lou Pilder
Posted by kid47 on March 20, 2007, at 17:10:23
In reply to Lou's reminder to DR. Hsiung (6B), posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 14:44:10
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 10:35:23
In reply to Dr. Bob...Deputies...Lou makes a good point. (nm), posted by kid47 on March 20, 2007, at 17:10:23
Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou {makes a good point}...] addressed to Dr. Hsiung and the deputies.
I was wondering if the author or anyone else could post here an identification of what in your opinions those points could be.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on March 22, 2007, at 14:23:28
In reply to Lou's reminder to DR. Hsiung (6), posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 6:57:17
> I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:15:11
In reply to About that three post thing, posted by Glydin on March 22, 2007, at 14:23:28
> > I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> > Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> > In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?
>
> ~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
>
> I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.Friends,
It is written here,[...not make exceptions...aid more timid posters..prevent one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads..consider uncivil...]
When this first came up, there were exceptions made to accomodate particular circumstances. The rule here is that it is made so that something like that [the less confident poster} can join in easier.
In my wondering as to what the rationale could be for the exceptions that have been made to this rule , I guess, are that the need for the poster to post more than 3 consecutive posts was more important to support and education than the need for the {less confidant poster} to have it easier for them to join in?
If that be the case here, then I think that an administrative discussion about the {action taken by the administration} and the policy here could be a discussion that could have a need for the discussant to post more than 3 consecutive posts in order for them to bring out the aspects of what they think about the action tsken by the administrator or the policy here, to have the potential IMO to be like the other exceptions that have already been made here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:51:42
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-harley, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:15:11
> > > I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> > > Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> > > In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?
> >
> > ~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
> >
> > I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...not make exceptions...aid more timid posters..prevent one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads..consider uncivil...]
> When this first came up, there were exceptions made to accomodate particular circumstances. The rule here is that it is made so that something like that [the less confident poster} can join in easier.
> In my wondering as to what the rationale could be for the exceptions that have been made to this rule , I guess, are that the need for the poster to post more than 3 consecutive posts was more important to support and education than the need for the {less confidant poster} to have it easier for them to join in?
> If that be the case here, then I think that an administrative discussion about the {action taken by the administration} and the policy here could be a discussion that could have a need for the discussant to post more than 3 consecutive posts in order for them to bring out the aspects of what they think about the action tsken by the administrator or the policy here, to have the potential IMO to be like the other exceptions that have already been made here.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads-which I consider uncivil...].
I am unsure as to what the poster is wanting to have purported (conveyed) here in regards to the above. I am unsure because it is not my intention to be one that could be characterized as(redacted by resopondant)a thread by posting more than 3 consecutive posts. My purpose is in responding to the administration's invitation that it is fine here to discuss the actions taken by the administration and the policy here.
Since this is a function of the administrative forum, I feel that I am welcomed here to discuss the adminstator's actions and policy and that the adminiistrator is willing to have dialog with me as per their invitation to do so. Others are under no obligation to join the discussion, but could if they like.
Now since this is IMO the proper place for an administrative discussion about the actions that the administration takes and the policy, I feel that a statement here that could have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings could have the potential to have me be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts because of the importance IMO for this to be discussed as being more important IMO to support and education here than for a {less confident poster} to have it easier for them to join in this type of discussion. The statement in question , if left as approved here, could IMO be a match to cause a forest fire that could IMO have the potential to spread here and to spread to other forums. Others may see it differently, and this is fine to discuss what others think about the action and policy that the administration is taking here concerning the statement in question.
If there is something that anyone would like to discuss here concerning this without posting it here, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Glydin on March 22, 2007, at 17:06:28
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-~k?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:51:42
Adm. has placed a three post rule to which IMO the majority of the posters here adhere to and have not protested. Given that, the expectation, as it appears to me, is that a poster should be able to express themselves in three or less consecutive posts. As posters we are ALL asked to adhere to that guideline with very few exceptions. I do not wish to see another exception.
I DO NOT want the boards to return to the way they were prior to the three posts rule. That's my opinion, plain and simple. I feel the three post rule has a place and serves a good purpose for the whole of the community.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 17:15:37
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-~k?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:51:42
> > > > I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> > > > Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> > > > In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?
> > >
> > > ~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
> > >
> > > I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...not make exceptions...aid more timid posters..prevent one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads..consider uncivil...]
> > When this first came up, there were exceptions made to accomodate particular circumstances. The rule here is that it is made so that something like that [the less confident poster} can join in easier.
> > In my wondering as to what the rationale could be for the exceptions that have been made to this rule , I guess, are that the need for the poster to post more than 3 consecutive posts was more important to support and education than the need for the {less confidant poster} to have it easier for them to join in?
> > If that be the case here, then I think that an administrative discussion about the {action taken by the administration} and the policy here could be a discussion that could have a need for the discussant to post more than 3 consecutive posts in order for them to bring out the aspects of what they think about the action tsken by the administrator or the policy here, to have the potential IMO to be like the other exceptions that have already been made here.
> > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> It is written here,[...one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads-which I consider uncivil...].
> I am unsure as to what the poster is wanting to have purported (conveyed) here in regards to the above. I am unsure because it is not my intention to be one that could be characterized as(redacted by resopondant)a thread by posting more than 3 consecutive posts. My purpose is in responding to the administration's invitation that it is fine here to discuss the actions taken by the administration and the policy here.
> Since this is a function of the administrative forum, I feel that I am welcomed here to discuss the adminstator's actions and policy and that the adminiistrator is willing to have dialog with me as per their invitation to do so. Others are under no obligation to join the discussion, but could if they like.
> Now since this is IMO the proper place for an administrative discussion about the actions that the administration takes and the policy, I feel that a statement here that could have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings could have the potential to have me be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts because of the importance IMO for this to be discussed as being more important IMO to support and education here than for a {less confident poster} to have it easier for them to join in this type of discussion. The statement in question , if left as approved here, could IMO be a match to cause a forest fire that could IMO have the potential to spread here and to spread to other forums. Others may see it differently, and this is fine to discuss what others think about the action and policy that the administration is taking here concerning the statement in question.
> If there is something that anyone would like to discuss here concerning this without posting it here, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
Ftiends,
I is written here,[...I have checked the archives...13-15 consecutive follow-ups by one poster...].
I remember a thread where I posted many follow ups that could be the one in question here. It was one where a statement was IMO one that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings concerning the God that the Jews cherish and worship. After the posts by me, a determination was made by Dr. Hsiung to show that an aspect that was posted in the thread to be unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum and took administrative action. I feel that the Jews reading that thread now and others that also thought that some aspects of the thread in question could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, could now see that any match that could have the potential to start IMO a forest fire here from that thread to spread here or to another forum was quenched. I think that it is more important for me here to put out potential fires than to keep silent until another poster posts after I have already posted 3 consecutive posts. For if on one was to wait for a post from another poster for a long time, or potentially not at all, in that thread, then could not any fire that could have IMO the potential to be started still be burning?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 17:40:36
In reply to The three posts rule, posted by Glydin on March 22, 2007, at 17:06:28
> Adm. has placed a three post rule to which IMO the majority of the posters here adhere to and have not protested. Given that, the expectation, as it appears to me, is that a poster should be able to express themselves in three or less consecutive posts. As posters we are ALL asked to adhere to that guideline with very few exceptions. I do not wish to see another exception.
>
> I DO NOT want the boards to return to the way they were prior to the three posts rule. That's my opinion, plain and simple. I feel the three post rule has a place and serves a good purpose for the whole of the community.Friends,
It is written here[...the majority...the way they were...serves a good purpose for the whole of the community...]
I am unsure as to what the {good purpose} is in the statement above. I am unsure because the purpose given in the TOS here is that the rule is made so that it could be easier for the {less confident poster} to join in.
But could not some other way be made to accommodate those members than to have this rule? I would like to have this rule have the exception that I am requesting in order so that I can discuss statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to put down Jews or to be not sensitive to the feelings of Jews or to be not supportive without having to wait for another poster or, I guess, the leas confident poster to post. I could need to be able to break this down into very small parts so that others could see it. One long post could have the potential IMO to be too much for some to remeber all in the one long post. And I received thanks from other members here. There are also posts by members here that do not agree with the rule in question here. I think that I have a good purpose to request that my needs in relation to discussing the actions of the administration and the policy concerning statement that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to be IMO a good purpose for the exception to be established.
Lou
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.