![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dena on July 17, 2008, at 20:10:49
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 19:24:48
> I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
>
> I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
>
> My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
>
> Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hi Dinah! It's good to hear from you again! I'm grateful to get a response ...
I remember how you shared about being more of a "Jamesinian" than "Paulinian" adherent to the Bible -- that's stuck with me these years! I also have experienced you to be a fair and impartial person, as well as compassionate.
I wouldn't say that Jews in general have been put down, but for whatever reason, I have seen that Lou specifically has been hindered from sharing his faith freely. I've seen him blocked for sharing his experience, and quoting from Scripture (as it was revealed to him), and being told that he's causing others to feel put down.
Of course, only the group being oppressed would be able to speak out about the oppression. Those doing the oppression wouldn't likely recognize it (note: I'm not saying that *you* are oppressing, just that the ones sensing the oppression would have the more accurate assessment).
I question the rules on posting in general, for it creates a parent/child atmosphere that's not conducive to being, or being treated as, adults. I've participated in many, many discussion lists and forums over the past decade or so, many of them which focus on highly volatile issues, and none of them is as restrictive, or as squelching, as this one.
It seems to me that in trying to make this a "safe environment" for everyone, nothing of substance is shared. The sense of having to walk on eggshells, or to comply with "group think" permeates ... and there's an incredible loss of freedom, as a result. There are more effective ways in which to encourage mutual-respect, and to correct without continual punitive actions.
I have seen that Lou has been singled out, for being who he is, and sharing as he shares, with people being frustrated with him, rude to him, and getting away with things far worse than what he's censored for.
Do we not all have the power of choice, to be free to either read, or delete, any particular post? Can we not give everyone the freedom to express themselves out of the goodness of their own consciences, and choose to either not take up offenses, or else to delete those who may unwittingly offend us?
I don't post here often, because of the restrictiveness of this forum, and because I've found other places in which the sharing is more free, without the restrictions (& yes, where kindness reigns, without being enforced from the outside).
I see Lou being treated in a way none of us would wish to be treated. I find that to be both unkind and unjust. And so, I'm speaking out.
I see him trying to resolve various injustices, or just asking for clarification, and receiving a rather rude silence.
It's wrong, it's unkind. It's unnecessary.
Thanks for responding, and for listening.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 20:55:53
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on July 17, 2008, at 20:10:49
Well, FWIW, I think I'd be relatively quick to notice antisemetism. I'm fairly sensitive to the topic. I could go into the relationship between considering myself a Jamesian and my attachment to Judaism, but here is not really the place.
Dr. Bob is encouraging posters to take more responsibility for the civility of the board by reporting posts that are uncivil using the notify administrators function at the bottom of each post. Certainly if you notice incivility to anyone, you should report it using that function.
I believe Lou's current outstanding notifications are in the hands of Dr. Bob. He hasn't appeared to have much time lately. But you'd have to take up the timeliness of his response directly with him.
Posted by Dena on July 18, 2008, at 1:37:51
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 20:55:53
> Well, FWIW, I think I'd be relatively quick to notice antisemetism. I'm fairly sensitive to the topic. I could go into the relationship between considering myself a Jamesian and my attachment to Judaism, but here is not really the place.
Dena: I understand. And, I see the relationship there.>
> Dr. Bob is encouraging posters to take more responsibility for the civility of the board by reporting posts that are uncivil using the notify administrators function at the bottom of each post. Certainly if you notice incivility to anyone, you should report it using that function.
Dena: Ah, that's a new feature to me. Thanks for that. Yes, it's good when the members of a forum can be active. Still, I prefer an environment that has fewer external rules, and more internal guidelines for mutual respect.>
> I believe Lou's current outstanding notifications are in the hands of Dr. Bob. He hasn't appeared to have much time lately. But you'd have to take up the timeliness of his response directly with him.
I have to wonder, if he doesn't have time to respond, and doesn't want to delegate any authority to the deputies, how is the community being served well?I know, I'd have to take that up with him... sigh... I guess I'll get in line, somewhere behind Lou.
(no animosity or frustration directed at you, Dinah -- thanks for taking the time to interact!)
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dinah on July 18, 2008, at 9:12:50
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on July 18, 2008, at 1:37:51
Dena, I wish to be fair to Dr. Bob, and not mislead you. These aren't things that Dr. Bob has refused to delegate. It is more that there are things in any system of justice, so to speak, that require an appellate court or in the case of nuanced decisions about the applicability of faith board guidelines, the supreme court. In this system, Dr. Bob is both, as well as technical help desk.
I'm not sure that it could be any other way.
Dr. Bob is busy, and there are a few things I've learned about getting a speedier response from him, if not a speedy one. Like *the* Supreme Court, rulings are not always that speedy.
Emails reach him sooner than on board requests. Also, specific requests might involve civility guideline violations, in which case they would have to be emailed to him.
To best get a speedier answer, it's best to have all relevant facts in the request, and for the request to be fairly brief. In the case of an appeal, that might be something like "I asked that this post be sanctioned, Administration did not sanction it. I ask you to review this decision because..." or "My post received an administrative sanction, I ask that you review this decision . I believe it should be reversed because..." The answer may merely be a "I think that I'll leave it as it is." without much further explanation. Sort of like a denial of a request for retrial.
A request for a specific determination of interpretation of Babble guidelines might go something like "I wish to post about xxxx. I understand that this may be in violation of Babble guidelines. Could you tell me precisely what would be in violation, what part of this I can post, and what changes I would need to make to post the rest of it."
It might involve civility violations to discuss how best to word requests to get responses to specific questions on the board. But perhaps you'd be willing to work with Lou off board on this?
It's not that Dr. Bob is unwilling to help. It's just that his Babble time does appear to be limited, and I'm sure there are many calls on what time he does have.
Also, requests for changes in babble rules, made with true hyotheticals, can certainly be made on board. My experience is that requests for changes in babble rules often meet with a polite statement from Dr. Bob that at this point he thinks the rules are in the best interests of Babble. Obviously this is also something only Dr. Bob can do.
I hope this is helpful. And Dr. Bob's intent is to be helpful as well, I'm sure. It is also based on my own experiences with him, which may differ from the experiences of others. I can only share what I have experienced myself.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 9:32:50
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on July 18, 2008, at 1:37:51
> > (Dinah) I believe Lou's current outstanding notifications are in the hands of Dr. Bob. He hasn't appeared to have much time lately. But you'd have to take up the timeliness of his response directly with him.
>
>
> (Dena) I have to wonder, if he doesn't have time to respond, and doesn't want to delegate any authority to the deputies, how is the community being served well?Hi Dena,
First, I want to commend you for your active and caring support for Lou and others. I've always been able to perceive the overall positive regard you hold for all in your posts, and that's a wonderful contribution here.I think you ask a good question, and I don't have any answers. Just to add my personal experience and perhaps a bit of perspective to this discussion... In my experience, I found it to be extraordinarily time-consuming to try to answer the various requests for clarifications, requests for determinations, et. al that Lou sends. When I was a deputy, I once spent a 4 hour chunk of time writing responses to outstanding requests from Lou, an amount of time which was far, far above the amount of time I would typically spend on a given day on Babble deputy duties in total, let alone on trying to meet the needs of one individual member. I did not consider this to be an effective or fair use of my time, personally or deputy-related. When those responses I sent were met with further questions, additional clarification requests, and so on, I felt I was caught up in a Sisyphean task. The deeper into it I delved, the more I could begin to feel upset, angry, frustrated, hurt, helpless, ineffective, out of balance, and/or dissonant, etc. At the point that replies in perhaps both directions contained content that was more personally directed, I felt I'd fallen so far off of my center that I would usually abandon the dialog despite knowing that the matter was not settled for Lou, and my efforts had seemed to me to amount essentially to nil or worse.
I am not speaking for Dr. Bob or any of the current or former deputies, only from my own experience. However, dollars to donuts, I believe the others are quite likely to find at least some familiarity with what I've described.
It's important for me to add that I've enjoyed the interactions and dialogs I've had with Lou outside the context of Babble administration, and at a time when I felt we were on better terms, I had thought we would one day meet in person. I've also found him to be remarkably generous in his offers of assistance to those in need. And the jokes about the robot in the pizza parlor just cracked me up. :)
For what it may or may not be worth,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 10:22:39
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 9:32:50
I just want to add that I don't think that Lou is doing anything wrong or "bad" with his posting style. We all are who we are, afterall. From a practical standpoint, I don't think the current set up has room for that much individual attention to anyone, unfortunately.
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 14:07:56
In reply to Re: Please Advise--addendum, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 10:22:39
> I just want to add that I don't think that Lou is doing anything wrong or "bad" with his posting style. We all are who we are, afterall. From a practical standpoint, I don't think the current set up has room for that much individual attention to anyone, unfortunately.
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...unfortunately...]
I am unsure as to the grammaical structure of your statment and as to the context that it is in as to what you ar wanting to mean. If you could reply to the following, I could have more understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
A.If you are referring to my outstanding requests, and I think that the context could mean that, what could be the consequenses to me as the outstanding notifications and or the outstanding requests for clarification and or the requests for a rationale and such still being outstanding as being {unfortunate] to me?
B.If the outstanding notifications/requests for clarification/requests for a rationale and such were answered here to me, would that remedy the situation to me so that the situation for me would not be unfortunate? If not, could you post here why not?
C. In the outstanding notifications, could you post here your opinion of what you think Mr. Hsiung means in his statement that [...we've missed them...] in relation to what your opinion is of what {missed} means in the statement?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 16:22:09
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-hoslnvirn? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 14:07:56
> > I just want to add that I don't think that Lou is doing anything wrong or "bad" with his posting style. We all are who we are, afterall. From a practical standpoint, I don't think the current set up has room for that much individual attention to anyone, unfortunately.
> >
> > gg
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...unfortunately...]
> I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement and as to the context that it is in as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could reply to the following, I could have more understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
> A.If you are referring to my outstanding requests, and I think that the context could mean that, what could be the consequences to me as the outstanding notifications and or the outstanding requests for clarification and or the requests for a rationale and such still being outstanding as being {unfortunate] to me?I would think that one consequence could be that you don't receive answers to all of your requests, despite your desire to.
> B.If the outstanding notifications/requests for clarification/requests for a rationale and such were answered here to me, would that remedy the situation to me so that the situation for me would not be unfortunate? If not, could you post here why not?
I don't know what is or is not unfortunate or fortunate for you personally, Lou. I stated that the current system does not allow for enough time for a great deal of individual attention to individual posters from Dr. Bob, nor from the deputies for that matter. That is unfortunate in that there are those who seem to wish for or need more of this attention, i.e. information, answers to questions, replies to comments, etc. than Dr. Bob and his current system of administration and accompanying constraints allow for.
> C. In the outstanding notifications, could you post here your opinion of what you think Mr. Hsiung means in his statement that [...we've missed them...] in relation to what your opinion is of what {missed} means in the statement?
I would guess "overlooked" in some manner, but it's only a guess.
gg
Posted by Dena on July 18, 2008, at 16:52:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-hoslnvirn? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 16:22:09
Thank you both, Dinah and GG, for giving me your perspectives on this. It does help to see things from varying viewpoints.
You are both very kind, and caring, and are obviously trying to serve the community to the best of your ability.
I agree -- human systems are limited in how the humans within them are served... it's an unfortunate reality.
Again - thanks for responding!
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 17:45:47
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-hoslnvirn? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 16:22:09
> > > I just want to add that I don't think that Lou is doing anything wrong or "bad" with his posting style. We all are who we are, afterall. From a practical standpoint, I don't think the current set up has room for that much individual attention to anyone, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> > gardenergirl,
> > You wrote,[...unfortunately...]
> > I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement and as to the context that it is in as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could reply to the following, I could have more understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
> > A.If you are referring to my outstanding requests, and I think that the context could mean that, what could be the consequences to me as the outstanding notifications and or the outstanding requests for clarification and or the requests for a rationale and such still being outstanding as being {unfortunate] to me?
>
> I would think that one consequence could be that you don't receive answers to all of your requests, despite your desire to.
>
> > B.If the outstanding notifications/requests for clarification/requests for a rationale and such were answered here to me, would that remedy the situation to me so that the situation for me would not be unfortunate? If not, could you post here why not?
>
> I don't know what is or is not unfortunate or fortunate for you personally, Lou. I stated that the current system does not allow for enough time for a great deal of individual attention to individual posters from Dr. Bob, nor from the deputies for that matter. That is unfortunate in that there are those who seem to wish for or need more of this attention, i.e. information, answers to questions, replies to comments, etc. than Dr. Bob and his current system of administration and accompanying constraints allow for.
>
> > C. In the outstanding notifications, could you post here your opinion of what you think Mr. Hsiung means in his statement that [...we've missed them...] in relation to what your opinion is of what {missed} means in the statement?
>
> I would guess "overlooked" in some manner, but it's only a guess.
>
> gg
>
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...the ..system does not allow for enough time for..individual attention..from (the administartion)...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement above. If you could clarify by answering te following, then I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
A. If the system does not allow as what you have written here, then if another member sent the same notification that is of the one that I sent that is outstanding,at around the same time, I am unsure as to what would happen in regards to the post in question could in your opinion as to the grammatical structure of your statement in question here, that the other member's notification would or would not be responded to.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 19:09:11
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-slctadmn? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 17:45:47
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...the ..system does not allow for enough time for..individual attention..from (the administartion)...]
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement above. If you could clarify by answering te following, then I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
> A. If the system does not allow as what you have written here, then if another member sent the same notification that is of the one that I sent that is outstanding,at around the same time, I am unsure as to what would happen in regards to the post in question could in your opinion as to the grammatical structure of your statement in question here, that the other member's notification would or would not be responded to.
> Lou
>I don't have any way to predict how the current team would respond in that situation. I can tell you about factors that might influence my actions in a similar situation if that would help.
First, I'd have to consider what the notifications were about. If they were about an area I did not feel especially competent to evaluate, which includes most Faith board posts, I would likely not respond to either notification and defer it to the others.
Assuming it was something I did feel competent to evaluate, I'd also look at whether your notification was about someone you've notified about more than three times in the past that did not warrant action as determined by admin. Admittedly, there was no "list" or other way to track that, so I would have to go by my memory of past notifications and their outcomes and perhaps check my email archives. Because as you know, Lou, according to one of the rules of three, if one's notification is about someone for whom one has notified more than three times (or three times?) prior on posts that were not uncivil, further notifications sent by the same poster about the same other poster will not be considered. On a side note, that could be an explanation for at least some of your outstanding notifications.
Another factor is "readability". If one poster sends a notification that is concise, direct, and clear, I found it easier to take on. If the notification is long, less direct, contains multiple rationals or criteria or other extraneous as far as what I needed as a deputy to do my job, I would be less inclined to act on that one.
If I had to choose between two notifications to take on as a deputy due to time, energy, or interest constraints, and one was from someone who sent in an occasional notification (or even no prior notifications) and the other was from someone who had sent in numerous and sometimes repetitive notifications, I would likely feel more inclined to address the first. That would feel more equitable to me in how I used my "deputy" time. Typically, I would rather have spent it helping more people a bit than helping one person a lot. The latter never felt fair to me.
And the obvious part to your scenario is that if two notifications were presented on the same post, and one was "addressed" and the other was not, the post is still getting looked at. If the post is uncivil, the subsequent admin action would be there in the thread for all to see, including anyone who sent in a notification. If the post was deemed not uncivil, I think it would be appropriate to let both posters who notified know of the decision, although if one of them as in the "Three strikes" situation with the poster in question, then they might not get a reply. Though from my point of view, if I'm composing one reply, it would not be too difficult to copy and paste that into a reply to the other poster either, regardless of the rule of three status.
Dear lord, this is complicated and hard to explain. But those are the factors I can think of that could and did at times influence my choices about responding to notifications.
Finally, to be perfectly frank, Lou, if I believed that any reply I sent to you to explain a decision that a post you notified about was not uncivil would be highly likely to be met with further appeals from you about it, I did at times choose to avoid getting into it altogether. I was grateful that this was an option for deputies and that we could elect this option for any reason.
gg
PS: Regarding the coded aspects of your subject lines in this dialog, I do not find Babble to be a hostile environment nor do I find selective administration to occur due to anti-semitism or other discrimination towards specific individuals and/or groups. I do believe that Babble might not feel like a supportive, nurturing, and/or comfortable place for every single individual for any number of reasons. No place is. And any selective administration I've noted appears to me to stem more from trying to be as effective and efficient as possible given all of the demands and the limited resources available to meet them.
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 20:52:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-slctadmn? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 19:09:11
> >
> > gardenergirl,
> > You wrote,[...the ..system does not allow for enough time for..individual attention..from (the administartion)...]
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement above. If you could clarify by answering te following, then I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
> > A. If the system does not allow as what you have written here, then if another member sent the same notification that is of the one that I sent that is outstanding,at around the same time, I am unsure as to what would happen in regards to the post in question could in your opinion as to the grammatical structure of your statement in question here, that the other member's notification would or would not be responded to.
> > Lou
> >
>
> I don't have any way to predict how the current team would respond in that situation. I can tell you about factors that might influence my actions in a similar situation if that would help.
>
> First, I'd have to consider what the notifications were about. If they were about an area I did not feel especially competent to evaluate, which includes most Faith board posts, I would likely not respond to either notification and defer it to the others.
>
> Assuming it was something I did feel competent to evaluate, I'd also look at whether your notification was about someone you've notified about more than three times in the past that did not warrant action as determined by admin. Admittedly, there was no "list" or other way to track that, so I would have to go by my memory of past notifications and their outcomes and perhaps check my email archives. Because as you know, Lou, according to one of the rules of three, if one's notification is about someone for whom one has notified more than three times (or three times?) prior on posts that were not uncivil, further notifications sent by the same poster about the same other poster will not be considered. On a side note, that could be an explanation for at least some of your outstanding notifications.
>
> Another factor is "readability". If one poster sends a notification that is concise, direct, and clear, I found it easier to take on. If the notification is long, less direct, contains multiple rationals or criteria or other extraneous as far as what I needed as a deputy to do my job, I would be less inclined to act on that one.
>
> If I had to choose between two notifications to take on as a deputy due to time, energy, or interest constraints, and one was from someone who sent in an occasional notification (or even no prior notifications) and the other was from someone who had sent in numerous and sometimes repetitive notifications, I would likely feel more inclined to address the first. That would feel more equitable to me in how I used my "deputy" time. Typically, I would rather have spent it helping more people a bit than helping one person a lot. The latter never felt fair to me.
>
> And the obvious part to your scenario is that if two notifications were presented on the same post, and one was "addressed" and the other was not, the post is still getting looked at. If the post is uncivil, the subsequent admin action would be there in the thread for all to see, including anyone who sent in a notification. If the post was deemed not uncivil, I think it would be appropriate to let both posters who notified know of the decision, although if one of them as in the "Three strikes" situation with the poster in question, then they might not get a reply. Though from my point of view, if I'm composing one reply, it would not be too difficult to copy and paste that into a reply to the other poster either, regardless of the rule of three status.
>
> Dear lord, this is complicated and hard to explain. But those are the factors I can think of that could and did at times influence my choices about responding to notifications.
>
> Finally, to be perfectly frank, Lou, if I believed that any reply I sent to you to explain a decision that a post you notified about was not uncivil would be highly likely to be met with further appeals from you about it, I did at times choose to avoid getting into it altogether. I was grateful that this was an option for deputies and that we could elect this option for any reason.
>
> gg
>
> PS: Regarding the coded aspects of your subject lines in this dialog, I do not find Babble to be a hostile environment nor do I find selective administration to occur due to anti-semitism or other discrimination towards specific individuals and/or groups. I do believe that Babble might not feel like a supportive, nurturing, and/or comfortable place for every single individual for any number of reasons. No place is. And any selective administration I've noted appears to me to stem more from trying to be as effective and efficient as possible given all of the demands and the limited resources available to meet them.gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...I can tell you about my factors that..in a similar situation if it would help..
I have read your reply and I still am unsure concerning the situation, in paticular, but not limited to Mr. Hsiung's post that says something like that we've missed it (the notifications outstanding). If I was to know what he is wanting to mean by {missed}, then I could have a look at what he wants to mean by {we've}. In this, Mr. Hsiung also states that if I was to send them again that they would be addressed per the notification procedure that says that they will either be notated on the board or something will be sent to the one notifying.
By the nature of Mr. Hsiung's post, it could have the meaning that my post was received and that there was nothing about it that caused them to reject it, such as being in the 3 rule that you meantion or have something other than that to cause them to {miss} it. The notification procedure states to do X,Y and Z as per the TOS and I have followed that procedure. And when the notifications are not responded to, a reminder can be posted on the board which I have done. And when the reminder id not attended to, a nother reminder can be posted as in Mr.Hsiung' statement to keep reminding him. I have followed those procedures.
Mr. Hsiung has posted that if I send them again that they will be addressed. I am willing as I have posted here to accomodate the administration inthat regard if all of the deputie post individually here that they have no remembrance by going to the time period and board in question of the post in question that was notified and have no way to know what the post was either by checking sources that could have the notification or by remembering. I am awaiting that to happen and then I will send them again.
But you write that this is complicated and I agree and that is why I am posting requests for clarification of this situation, so that the complications can be cleared up.
Anothe request that I think could clear up the complication is that Mr. Hsiung wrote concerning the emails, that he can not answer all emails now. I am asking to clear that up by him responding to my request to know what he is wanting to mean here in referrence to the situation because his statement could mean that he could answwer 999 out of 1000 emails and he does invite members to email him and it is posted here that it is advised to email him if you want a quicker response. I took him at his word.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 21:17:23
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-ehkaltmt » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 20:52:42
> Mr. Hsiung has posted that if I send them again that they will be addressed. I am willing as I have posted here to accomodate the administration inthat regard if all of the deputie post individually here that they have no remembrance by going to the time period and board in question of the post in question that was notified and have no way to know what the post was either by checking sources that could have the notification or by remembering.Lou,
Dr. Bob has requested you re-send the notifications. I recognize that you have followed the reminder procedures that he has outlined in the past. But at this time, and as in times recently past, he is asking for your assistance in helping him help you.
Instead, you're asking three individuals to search and sort through their records, records which contain notification emails from many others besides you, for ones from you that might have been overlooked or have not yet been addressed by Dr. Bob. And then there is you, a single individual who, I assume, possesses records of your own notifications only and who is, by your admission of your diligence in reminding, aware of exactly which notifications have not been addressed. Which do you think would be the more effective and efficient way of bringing the outstanding notifications to Dr. Bob's attention now? Asking three people to duplicate efforts in searching for something amongst many others? Or one individual sending what one must surely have documented in a manner which helps them easily find them?
Lou, I recommend working from an effective and efficient standpoint versus standing on principle.
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 21:36:47
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-ehkaltmt » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 20:52:42
> > >
> > > gardenergirl,
> > > You wrote,[...the ..system does not allow for enough time for..individual attention..from (the administartion)...]
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement above. If you could clarify by answering te following, then I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly.
> > > A. If the system does not allow as what you have written here, then if another member sent the same notification that is of the one that I sent that is outstanding,at around the same time, I am unsure as to what would happen in regards to the post in question could in your opinion as to the grammatical structure of your statement in question here, that the other member's notification would or would not be responded to.
> > > Lou
> > >
> >
> > I don't have any way to predict how the current team would respond in that situation. I can tell you about factors that might influence my actions in a similar situation if that would help.
> >
> > First, I'd have to consider what the notifications were about. If they were about an area I did not feel especially competent to evaluate, which includes most Faith board posts, I would likely not respond to either notification and defer it to the others.
> >
> > Assuming it was something I did feel competent to evaluate, I'd also look at whether your notification was about someone you've notified about more than three times in the past that did not warrant action as determined by admin. Admittedly, there was no "list" or other way to track that, so I would have to go by my memory of past notifications and their outcomes and perhaps check my email archives. Because as you know, Lou, according to one of the rules of three, if one's notification is about someone for whom one has notified more than three times (or three times?) prior on posts that were not uncivil, further notifications sent by the same poster about the same other poster will not be considered. On a side note, that could be an explanation for at least some of your outstanding notifications.
> >
> > Another factor is "readability". If one poster sends a notification that is concise, direct, and clear, I found it easier to take on. If the notification is long, less direct, contains multiple rationals or criteria or other extraneous as far as what I needed as a deputy to do my job, I would be less inclined to act on that one.
> >
> > If I had to choose between two notifications to take on as a deputy due to time, energy, or interest constraints, and one was from someone who sent in an occasional notification (or even no prior notifications) and the other was from someone who had sent in numerous and sometimes repetitive notifications, I would likely feel more inclined to address the first. That would feel more equitable to me in how I used my "deputy" time. Typically, I would rather have spent it helping more people a bit than helping one person a lot. The latter never felt fair to me.
> >
> > And the obvious part to your scenario is that if two notifications were presented on the same post, and one was "addressed" and the other was not, the post is still getting looked at. If the post is uncivil, the subsequent admin action would be there in the thread for all to see, including anyone who sent in a notification. If the post was deemed not uncivil, I think it would be appropriate to let both posters who notified know of the decision, although if one of them as in the "Three strikes" situation with the poster in question, then they might not get a reply. Though from my point of view, if I'm composing one reply, it would not be too difficult to copy and paste that into a reply to the other poster either, regardless of the rule of three status.
> >
> > Dear lord, this is complicated and hard to explain. But those are the factors I can think of that could and did at times influence my choices about responding to notifications.
> >
> > Finally, to be perfectly frank, Lou, if I believed that any reply I sent to you to explain a decision that a post you notified about was not uncivil would be highly likely to be met with further appeals from you about it, I did at times choose to avoid getting into it altogether. I was grateful that this was an option for deputies and that we could elect this option for any reason.
> >
> > gg
> >
> > PS: Regarding the coded aspects of your subject lines in this dialog, I do not find Babble to be a hostile environment nor do I find selective administration to occur due to anti-semitism or other discrimination towards specific individuals and/or groups. I do believe that Babble might not feel like a supportive, nurturing, and/or comfortable place for every single individual for any number of reasons. No place is. And any selective administration I've noted appears to me to stem more from trying to be as effective and efficient as possible given all of the demands and the limited resources available to meet them.
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...I can tell you about my factors that..in a similar situation if it would help..
> I have read your reply and I still am unsure concerning the situation, in paticular, but not limited to Mr. Hsiung's post that says something like that we've missed it (the notifications outstanding). If I was to know what he is wanting to mean by {missed}, then I could have a look at what he wants to mean by {we've}. In this, Mr. Hsiung also states that if I was to send them again that they would be addressed per the notification procedure that says that they will either be notated on the board or something will be sent to the one notifying.
> By the nature of Mr. Hsiung's post, it could have the meaning that my post was received and that there was nothing about it that caused them to reject it, such as being in the 3 rule that you meantion or have something other than that to cause them to {miss} it. The notification procedure states to do X,Y and Z as per the TOS and I have followed that procedure. And when the notifications are not responded to, a reminder can be posted on the board which I have done. And when the reminder id not attended to, a nother reminder can be posted as in Mr.Hsiung' statement to keep reminding him. I have followed those procedures.
> Mr. Hsiung has posted that if I send them again that they will be addressed. I am willing as I have posted here to accomodate the administration inthat regard if all of the deputie post individually here that they have no remembrance by going to the time period and board in question of the post in question that was notified and have no way to know what the post was either by checking sources that could have the notification or by remembering. I am awaiting that to happen and then I will send them again.
> But you write that this is complicated and I agree and that is why I am posting requests for clarification of this situation, so that the complications can be cleared up.
> Anothe request that I think could clear up the complication is that Mr. Hsiung wrote concerning the emails, that he can not answer all emails now. I am asking to clear that up by him responding to my request to know what he is wanting to mean here in referrence to the situation because his statement could mean that he could answwer 999 out of 1000 emails and he does invite members to email him and it is posted here that it is advised to email him if you want a quicker response. I took him at his word.
> Lougardenergirl,
You wrote,[...if this could help (from your perspective)...].
Your perspective does bring out what you perceive but it could speak for other deputies and Mr Hsiung if they reiterated your perspective. But I see that the 3 rule and the other factors that you use may not be what they used to not respond yet because of that Mr. Hsiung has posted,[...we've *missed* them...please send them again...].
Your perspective could give some light on what is meant by {missed} but their meaning intended could be different from yours and I await his reply to my request for clarification. I also know that the member was not requested 3 other notifications in the past because I have a list of those and there are few.
As to waiting for the response from the administration concerning the outstanding requests, I have posted conditions for me to resend them that they post what I have requested from them. That could mean that the posts in question may not be addressed. But if there has been a significant time lapse already, what could in your opinion be the consequences to me for the posts to go unaddressed even if they are to be addressed now?
I think that there are ways to clear up the complications to this situation here, one being if the deputies posted here in this thread what is what they are wanting to mean by {missed} to me when I read Mr. Hsiung's statement to me, then that is one thing that IMO could clear up the situation here. And along with that, the deputies could explain how Mr. Hsiung may have used the word {we've} in [...we've missed them...send them again...].
Another way that I think that the situation could be resolved is if Mr. Hsiung replied to me in relation to the emails that he posted about of mine to him or post here hwy he can't in relation to his statement that he can not answer {all} emails as to what the reason is that he can not reply to my emails to him.
Another way is for us to agree on an impartial third party, not from the U of Chicago as I once requested, and allow them to post their decision on the admin. board, not on the thread in question.
Another way that I think could resolve this is for Mr. Hsiung to allow me to post more than 3 consecutive posts in the thread in question to uncover what may be not seen like I did with the poem by Mark Morford and the statement by Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Another way could be for a deputy to email me and we could discuss the location but not the post in question so that the deputy could then narrow the post down.
Another offer is that a member be allowed to post for me the post in question on the admin board that you choose.
Another way to clear this up IMO is for a new deputy be appointed and I will email it to that member.This could amount to a special moderator that I have previously suggested for I could then send all of the outstanding requests to them.
Other good and just solutions to this complication.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 21:57:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-ehkaltmt » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 21:17:23
>
> > Mr. Hsiung has posted that if I send them again that they will be addressed. I am willing as I have posted here to accomodate the administration inthat regard if all of the deputie post individually here that they have no remembrance by going to the time period and board in question of the post in question that was notified and have no way to know what the post was either by checking sources that could have the notification or by remembering.
>
> Lou,
>
> Dr. Bob has requested you re-send the notifications. I recognize that you have followed the reminder procedures that he has outlined in the past. But at this time, and as in times recently past, he is asking for your assistance in helping him help you.
>
> Instead, you're asking three individuals to search and sort through their records, records which contain notification emails from many others besides you, for ones from you that might have been overlooked or have not yet been addressed by Dr. Bob. And then there is you, a single individual who, I assume, possesses records of your own notifications only and who is, by your admission of your diligence in reminding, aware of exactly which notifications have not been addressed. Which do you think would be the more effective and efficient way of bringing the outstanding notifications to Dr. Bob's attention now? Asking three people to duplicate efforts in searching for something amongst many others? Or one individual sending what one must surely have documented in a manner which helps them easily find them?
>
> Lou, I recommend working from an effective and efficient standpoint versus standing on principle.
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...three deputies...their records...emials of others besides you...].
Iam unsure as to what you are wanting mean by your statement and if you could clarify the following, I could have abetter understanding and respond accordingly.
A. Is it possible that the deputies have the notifications by me in their system/
B. If tht is possible, could they find them by using a search with my name?
C. And if that is possible, could that be a solution to this complication and we could go on? And if not, could you post here why not?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 22:10:42
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-Lou's offer, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 21:36:47
I wouldn't consider any of those suggestions likely to be efficient or effective in obtaining answers to your outstanding notifications. If your goal something other than obtaining answers to your notifications, perhaps to prove or not something about what actions or inactions mean other than simply a lack of an answer, well, those ideas may or may not be likely to achieve that goal. But they are also quite unlikely to occur. Given the stated and apparent limited capacity of the admin team's time and attention here, multiple requests that have quite often gone far and beyond what nearly every other community member here requests do not fit what I would consider to be reasonable and able to be accommodated. I might even go so far as to consider it pressuring the admin team for more than they have told you they can provide. But I don't get to make that assessment. Still, when I was a deputy, I was quite comfortable with choosing not to accommodate requests which were far beyond what was usual and customary and beyond what I believed was necessary for the good of the community as a whole.
Lou, I can't give you what you are seeking. Frankly, I don't believe what I suspect you are seeking exists in the specific context of the interactions between you and the admin team, but nevertheless, I know I don't have what you seem to be looking for. And I will not clarify the statements in this paragraph, so please don't ask.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 22:32:29
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-posiemalmal » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 21:57:45
>
> A. Is it possible that the deputies have the notifications by me in their system/Yes.
> B. If tht is possible, could they find them by using a search with my name?
Yes.
> C. And if that is possible, could that be a solution to this complication and we could go on? And if not, could you post here why not?
It could. But it's not close to being an efficient solution. You are asking three people to do work that you, a single individual, can do much more efficiently and effectively given your familiarity with the very posts you are asking them to hunt down. Why would it be reasonable, effective, or efficient to ask three people with a more limited familiarity with the specifics each to do something that one person, you Lou, can do alone and with more expertise? Just for that very reason, I wouldn't do it, and I would support any and all of the current deputies who might also consider it to not be an effective or efficient use of their time.
I consider it a request for treatment of one poster's expressed needs beyond the usual and customary here, and I do not consider it to be an urgent enough nor useful enough need for the everyday functioning of the community to warrant that much special treatment. When you also factor in my belief based on my own experience, this dialog as just one example, that the expressed need or desire for individual attention or treatment far beyond the usual and customary here does not end even if the specific need is met, I would also heartily support those who might decide not to provide extraordinarily high amounts of attention to one individual over and over. How is that fair or reasonable?
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 23:07:39
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-posiemalmal » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2008, at 22:32:29
> >
> > A. Is it possible that the deputies have the notifications by me in their system/
>
> Yes.
>
> > B. If tht is possible, could they find them by using a search with my name?
>
> Yes.
>
> > C. And if that is possible, could that be a solution to this complication and we could go on? And if not, could you post here why not?
>
> It could. But it's not close to being an efficient solution. You are asking three people to do work that you, a single individual, can do much more efficiently and effectively given your familiarity with the very posts you are asking them to hunt down. Why would it be reasonable, effective, or efficient to ask three people with a more limited familiarity with the specifics each to do something that one person, you Lou, can do alone and with more expertise? Just for that very reason, I wouldn't do it, and I would support any and all of the current deputies who might also consider it to not be an effective or efficient use of their time.
>
> I consider it a request for treatment of one poster's expressed needs beyond the usual and customary here, and I do not consider it to be an urgent enough nor useful enough need for the everyday functioning of the community to warrant that much special treatment. When you also factor in my belief based on my own experience, this dialog as just one example, that the expressed need or desire for individual attention or treatment far beyond the usual and customary here does not end even if the specific need is met, I would also heartily support those who might decide not to provide extraordinarily high amounts of attention to one individual over and over. How is that fair or reasonable?
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote in response to my request to you as to if using my name in a search by the deputies to find the notification and be a solution to this complication,[... it could, but it is not..{efficient}...].
I am unsure as to why if it is a solution to the issues here by the deputies doing a search of my name as to how that is not efficient. The generally accepted meaning of efficient is that it achieves the intended effect.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 23:31:07
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rhdhrng? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 23:07:39
> > >
> > > A. Is it possible that the deputies have the notifications by me in their system/
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > B. If tht is possible, could they find them by using a search with my name?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > C. And if that is possible, could that be a solution to this complication and we could go on? And if not, could you post here why not?
> >
> > It could. But it's not close to being an efficient solution. You are asking three people to do work that you, a single individual, can do much more efficiently and effectively given your familiarity with the very posts you are asking them to hunt down. Why would it be reasonable, effective, or efficient to ask three people with a more limited familiarity with the specifics each to do something that one person, you Lou, can do alone and with more expertise? Just for that very reason, I wouldn't do it, and I would support any and all of the current deputies who might also consider it to not be an effective or efficient use of their time.
> >
> > I consider it a request for treatment of one poster's expressed needs beyond the usual and customary here, and I do not consider it to be an urgent enough nor useful enough need for the everyday functioning of the community to warrant that much special treatment. When you also factor in my belief based on my own experience, this dialog as just one example, that the expressed need or desire for individual attention or treatment far beyond the usual and customary here does not end even if the specific need is met, I would also heartily support those who might decide not to provide extraordinarily high amounts of attention to one individual over and over. How is that fair or reasonable?
> >
> > gg
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote in response to my request to you as to if using my name in a search by the deputies to find the notification and be a solution to this complication,[... it could, but it is not..{efficient}...].
> I am unsure as to why if it is a solution to the issues here by the deputies doing a search of my name as to how that is not efficient. The generally accepted meaning of efficient is that it achieves the intended effect.
> Lougardenergirl,
You wrote,[...How is that fair or reasonable?...].
I would like to answer your question. Your first statement as to that the issue could be resolved by the deputies doing a search with my name is not efficient and I am unsure as to why it is not efficient for them to do that. In fact, would not just one deputy have to do that?
You have also posted about helping Mr. Hsiung. I ask, in regards to your question to me here, could it not be fair and reasonable for a deputy to help Mr. Hsiung?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 0:26:13
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rhdhrng? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 23:07:39
> I am unsure as to why if it is a solution to the issues here by the deputies doing a search of my name as to how that is not efficient. The generally accepted meaning of efficient is that it achieves the intended effect.
No, that is the generally accepted meaning of "effective".
It's not efficient (as in expedient, simpler, done in a manner which expends the least amount of effort for the greatest effect) for three people to each do the same work that one can do, especially if that one can do it easier due to your increased familiarity with and and smaller search set of data. And frankly, I think it's unnecessary for three people to each do the work that one can do when it's the one who is the interested party, not the three.
Perhaps you could give this a gander to see more about what I mean. http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/html/interpersonal_effectiveness_ha.html
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 0:35:33
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-phairnreezbul?, posted by Lou PIlder on July 18, 2008, at 23:31:07
> You wrote,[...How is that fair or reasonable?...].
> I would like to answer your question. Your first statement as to that the issue could be resolved by the deputies doing a search with my name is not efficient and I am unsure as to why it is not efficient for them to do that. In fact, would not just one deputy have to do that?That's not what you asked. Plus, you asked each of them to post on it. I do not find that to be a reasonable request. Nor is it within the standard practice of administration. Dr. Bob supports the idea that it is not necessary for each of the deputies to post an individual response to a question that can be answered by administration via one member's post.
> You have also posted about helping Mr. Hsiung. I ask, in regards to your question to me here, could it not be fair and reasonable for a deputy to help Mr. Hsiung?
They help in many ways, and I know from experience that it takes time, effort, and energy. They have to use that time, effort, and energy judiciously and wisely. And dare I say, effectively and efficiently. They do not have to, nor would it be wise to, imo, use that effort, time, and energy redundantly, within the bounds of a Sisyphean task, or when the common good that may come of it is relatively small in scope and scale in comparison to the quantity and quality of that expenditure of time, effort, and energy.
I think I've made my views on this extremely clear, Lou, and I'm not very likely to change them based on any additional information you might present about this. I've danced this dance before. I know the steps. I know how it tends to end. I'd rather expend this energy clipping my dog's toenails, as that will have a greater benefit to me, the dog, and my carpets and wood floors, a specific and easily observed outcome, and a definite end to that round of efforts.
Good night,
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 4:16:19
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-rhdhrng? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 0:26:13
> > I am unsure as to why if it is a solution to the issues here by the deputies doing a search of my name as to how that is not efficient. The generally accepted meaning of efficient is that it achieves the intended effect.
>
> No, that is the generally accepted meaning of "effective".
>
> It's not efficient (as in expedient, simpler, done in a manner which expends the least amount of effort for the greatest effect) for three people to each do the same work that one can do, especially if that one can do it easier due to your increased familiarity with and and smaller search set of data. And frankly, I think it's unnecessary for three people to each do the work that one can do when it's the one who is the interested party, not the three.
>
> Perhaps you could give this a gander to see more about what I mean. http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/html/interpersonal_effectiveness_ha.html
>
> gg
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...no...] to that I wrote that the generally accepted meaning of {efficient} is that it achieves the intended effect.
Here is a link to the merriam-webster deinition of efficient. They use the phrase {production of desired effect}. I understand that to mean that it achieves the intended effect.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficient
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 5:19:38
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-phairnreezbul? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 0:35:33
>
> > You wrote,[...How is that fair or reasonable?...].
> > I would like to answer your question. Your first statement as to that the issue could be resolved by the deputies doing a search with my name is not efficient and I am unsure as to why it is not efficient for them to do that. In fact, would not just one deputy have to do that?
>
> That's not what you asked. Plus, you asked each of them to post on it. I do not find that to be a reasonable request. Nor is it within the standard practice of administration. Dr. Bob supports the idea that it is not necessary for each of the deputies to post an individual response to a question that can be answered by administration via one member's post.
>
> > You have also posted about helping Mr. Hsiung. I ask, in regards to your question to me here, could it not be fair and reasonable for a deputy to help Mr. Hsiung?
>
> They help in many ways, and I know from experience that it takes time, effort, and energy. They have to use that time, effort, and energy judiciously and wisely. And dare I say, effectively and efficiently. They do not have to, nor would it be wise to, imo, use that effort, time, and energy redundantly, within the bounds of a Sisyphean task, or when the common good that may come of it is relatively small in scope and scale in comparison to the quantity and quality of that expenditure of time, effort, and energy.
>
> I think I've made my views on this extremely clear, Lou, and I'm not very likely to change them based on any additional information you might present about this. I've danced this dance before. I know the steps. I know how it tends to end. I'd rather expend this energy clipping my dog's toenails, as that will have a greater benefit to me, the dog, and my carpets and wood floors, a specific and easily observed outcome, and a definite end to that round of efforts.
>
> Good night,
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...it takes time, effort and energy...they (the deputies) do not have to use that..when the common good that may come from it is relativley small...].
That the common good that may come from it (I guess using a search with my name) that could have them know of the outstanding notification,could be of importance to the requester and perhaps other members that may be unbeknownst to the deputy that chooses not to do the search to see if the notification can be seen by them.
This went to trial in relation to a resturant chain that involved patrons that were of unpopular ethnic origen.
The facts were that those patrons were either refused service, made to have an additional requierment for service, and other denial of equitable service.
These patrons were made to wait after they orderd and then when the patrons reminded the server of that they had ordered and not received their meal, the server told them that they would have to order again and that they lost it (the order). They were then told that they had an additional requierment to be served, to(pay in advance).
For a resturant to do such one time could be excused. The trial court looked at if there was a pattern and there was, for group made up of the same ethnic affiliation was treated in the same manner. The trial court looked at that to be a pattern of more than just one-time.
Then the resturant could not produce the wait list. And the fact that the resturant was not full was taken into consideration. Then it was determined that the wait list was destroyed..
The trial court looked at as to who had controll of the situation. The patrons did not, the resturant employees did have control and could give equitable service or not, and could give either fair or unfair treatment to patrons.
In several of the situations the patrons that were treated unfairly were also subjected to ethnic slurs and epithets and violence by other patrons as a result of them being treated unfairly.
You see, there is much more to this situation here IMO than who can do what the most efficient way. My concerns involve not just that the notification was not addressed the firat time that I sent it, nor was it addressed when I posted each reminder that I had sent a notification and it is outstanding.And now months have passed and I am told now to send it again. I would like to understand why that request to me was not made the first time that I sent the notification or the reminders.
Now I will send it again if all the deputies post individually that they have no way to know except from me, what the post in question is. then if that happems we could know what Mr. Hsiung is wanting to mean by,[...we've missed them...send them again...] and,[...I can't answer all emails now...].
Mr. Hsiung and his deputies may or may not understand what the consequences could be to me by allowing the statement in the notification to go unaddressed. They may or may not understand as to what the common good could or could not be as a result of leaving the statement in question unaddressed. I think that we will have to wait and see as to if a deputy or Mr. Hsiung will do the search or not, or post that they have no way to locate it except from me so that I will send it again, and either address the statement in the thread or contact me with their rationale for allowing it to stand, or post that all the deputies and Mr. Hsiung can not locate the notification. I have received a confirmation that my notification was sent and that it will be either adressed on the board or I will be contacted as to why it is allowed to stand. That is what I have read in Mr. Hsiung's TOS here and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word.
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on July 19, 2008, at 12:18:04
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 5:19:38
Lou, I feel hurt and incredibly offended reading a comparison between a discrimination case based on "unpopular ethnic origin" and what deputies do or don't do here at Babble.
If you believe, in your heart of hearts, that any one of us, or Dr. Bob, treats posters differently based on ethnicity, race, religion, etc., well, I am simply flabbergasted, and I don't know what else to do but tell you how utterly and completely mistaken you truly are.
I've been reminded from time to time while I've been a deputy that one may have to "grow a thick(er) skin" to withstand some of what may be said here. I think that's right and that I have managed, overall, to do that. But something like this penetrates, to the very core of who I am, and as I said, I feel pain.
I am so very sorry you think and feel this way, Lou. I really am.
-- 10derHeart
Posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 13:10:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple » Lou PIlder, posted by 10derHeart on July 19, 2008, at 12:18:04
I'm sorry it's happening again, though I suppose I could have predicted it and acted differently if I had been thinking more globally.
(((((10derheart))))))
You have a beautiful, loving, generous heart, and I value you.
gg
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.