![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 180. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 13:38:36
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 5:19:38
I doubt that the patrons in the suit ordered each menu item from the servers one at a time upon successive trips to the table by the server or asked for clarification upon clarification upon clarification such as:
what exactly the item is
what different words mean to the server
what temperature "hot" is
exactly what size "large" represents
what color plate it will be on
what options for different color plates exist
how could the special be sold out and unavailable when it says right here that it exists
etc. etc. etc.
I also doubt that the patrons provided reading material and information to their fellow diners and asked them what they thought "small" meant or "chilled" etc., taking into account said information when forming their reply, of course.
Your behavior plays a role in your interactions here with admin and with the community, Lou, just as the behavior of every other community member including me affects the interactions we each have. I suspect your behavior, Lou, likely would be represented by an outlying data point were it to be quantified and described as part of a data set of the entire community, just as the hypothetical behavior of restaurant patrons I outlined above would be far outside the norm of the behavior of restaurant patrons in general. There is nothing inherently wrong with behavior such as I described above, but it does have consequences. Those consequences are the effect of the BEHAVIOR, and not any character label. .As you notice, I gave no demographic information about the patrons in my scenario. Any conclusions one might make about the reactions of the staff could not be based on any demographic category the patrons might be placed in.
Lou, you could be Jewish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, tall, short, round, purple, pink, brown, beige, yellow, red, striped, spotted, translucent, shimmery, fragrant, prickly, smooth, dressed, undressed, partially dressed, liberal, conservative, multi-ethnic, right-handed, left-handed, ambidextrous, bi-lingual, multi-lingual, mute, deaf, blind, weak, strong, on steroids, on acid, high on life, low on toilet paper, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above, some but not all of the above, different versions of the above at different times or places, etc., and if you still exhibited the same behaviors here at Babble, you would experience the same consequences. Of this I have NO DOUBT.
It is because of this belief that I assess the potential greater good that could come of the admin team putting forth extraordinary efforts to meet your specific needs as very small. I tend to doubt, in fact, that it would even represent a single good to you, as I fear you will never feel satisfied despite anyone's best and extraordinary efforts. And I feel sad about that aspect, because I imagine living in that state would be terribly painful.
Sincerely,
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 14:31:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple » Lou PIlder, posted by 10derHeart on July 19, 2008, at 12:18:04
> 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.
>
> -- 10derHeart10derHeart,
You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
Lou
Well, I am part of the whole here,
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 14:33:16
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple » Lou PIlder, posted by 10derHeart on July 19, 2008, at 12:18:04
> 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.
>
> -- 10derHeart10derHeart,
You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
Mr. Hsiung writes that if one wanted to know his rationales to just ask. I took him at his word.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 15:25:10
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 13:38:36
> I doubt that the patrons in the suit ordered each menu item from the servers one at a time upon successive trips to the table by the server or asked for clarification upon clarification upon clarification such as:
>
> what exactly the item is
>
> what different words mean to the server
>
> what temperature "hot" is
>
> exactly what size "large" represents
>
> what color plate it will be on
>
> what options for different color plates exist
>
> how could the special be sold out and unavailable when it says right here that it exists
>
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> I also doubt that the patrons provided reading material and information to their fellow diners and asked them what they thought "small" meant or "chilled" etc., taking into account said information when forming their reply, of course.
>
> Your behavior plays a role in your interactions here with admin and with the community, Lou, just as the behavior of every other community member including me affects the interactions we each have. I suspect your behavior, Lou, likely would be represented by an outlying data point were it to be quantified and described as part of a data set of the entire community, just as the hypothetical behavior of restaurant patrons I outlined above would be far outside the norm of the behavior of restaurant patrons in general. There is nothing inherently wrong with behavior such as I described above, but it does have consequences. Those consequences are the effect of the BEHAVIOR, and not any character label. .As you notice, I gave no demographic information about the patrons in my scenario. Any conclusions one might make about the reactions of the staff could not be based on any demographic category the patrons might be placed in.
>
> Lou, you could be Jewish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, tall, short, round, purple, pink, brown, beige, yellow, red, striped, spotted, translucent, shimmery, fragrant, prickly, smooth, dressed, undressed, partially dressed, liberal, conservative, multi-ethnic, right-handed, left-handed, ambidextrous, bi-lingual, multi-lingual, mute, deaf, blind, weak, strong, on steroids, on acid, high on life, low on toilet paper, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above, some but not all of the above, different versions of the above at different times or places, etc., and if you still exhibited the same behaviors here at Babble, you would experience the same consequences. Of this I have NO DOUBT.
>
> It is because of this belief that I assess the potential greater good that could come of the admin team putting forth extraordinary efforts to meet your specific needs as very small. I tend to doubt, in fact, that it would even represent a single good to you, as I fear you will never feel satisfied despite anyone's best and extraordinary efforts. And I feel sad about that aspect, because I imagine living in that state would be terribly painful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...I doubt that the patrons...asked for clarification upon clarification...what exactly the item is...different words...hot...color of plate...your behavior plays a role...Your XXX..represented by an outlying data point...YYY outside the norm...the potential greater good that could come of the adminstrative team putting forth extrordinary efforts to meet your..needs as very small...doubt.. that it would even represent a single good to you...you will XXX feel satisfied...living in that state..terribly painful.
I like your example about the patrons asking questions to the server. You see, I was a gormet waiter durring my college years and was trained to ask those questions , for each individual has spacific dietary needs. Diabetics need to know what is in the food. I had to know how each dish was prepared to ask even if there was garlic in the dish. And the color of the dish wa important o some. A white dish was asked for many times. Some people want to see what comes out of the food as to fat and such and are concerned about contamination and cleanliness. The white plate helped those people to have confidence.
The temperature was important to some. some people have extrme sensitivities to heat and cold and the degree of hot could be important to them.
Portion size was extreamly impotant to dieters and thers that had to be concerned about volume.
Some itms were unknown as to what they were due to their name. Escargot was one. I tried to be helpful from my training and was able to answer all questions except one.
Different ethnic peoples have strict dietary demands and some want to know if there is any pork products in the food, or if milk products are in the food. This was in my training/ How meat is cooked according to being rare or well-done is also important to some as to bacteria like ecoli being killed from the temperature. I had to know each cooking temperature.
Then there was service which was a great part of the resturant's appeal. We made sure that each patron got the best service and out motto was that all patrons deserved that. Each order was timed and placed in a series of procedures so that it was impossible for an order to get lost or for one patron to be served ahead of another in relation to the taking of the order.
more...
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on July 19, 2008, at 21:52:25
In reply to Been there. Felt that. » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 13:10:13
Hi gg.
Thanks for hearing me. I know you know. I can't see what you needed to do differently. We are each and every one of us, responsible for our own writings. I don't think you can accurately predict all possible responses from others, and even if you could, you can only worry about what you, personally, place on these boards to be read.
Anyway.....always great to see you :-)
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 20, 2008, at 5:16:33
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-phaulzakt? » 10derHeart, posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 14:31:45
> > 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
>
> 10derHeart,
> You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> Lou
> Well, I am part of the whole here,10derHeart,
You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 20, 2008, at 6:25:30
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-thnknfheel, posted by Lou PIlder on July 20, 2008, at 5:16:33
> > > 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
> >
> > 10derHeart,
> > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > Lou
> > Well, I am part of the whole here,
>
> 10derHeart,
> You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> LouFriends,
Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
Lou
PS
the correction to the link above is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 21, 2008, at 9:51:57
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-fndtn, posted by Lou PIlder on July 20, 2008, at 6:25:30
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > 10derHeart,
> > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > Lou
> > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> >
> > 10derHeart,
> > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> Lou
> PS
> the correction to the link above is:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.htmlFriends,
If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
Lou
Posted by Dena on July 21, 2008, at 20:42:45
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck?, posted by Lou PIlder on July 21, 2008, at 9:51:57
So, did anyone else click on Lou's link, and read that previous thread, from 2005?
I was flabbergasted by what I read there...!
I wasn't active here then (I started posting in 2001 or 2002, but got tired of the lack of freedom to speak, and left around 2004), so I was unfamiliar with what occurred then... but whew!
Here's the deal: It was brought to Dr. Bob's attention that a poster was making racial slurs, specifically about Jews. I'm not Jewish, but they made ME cringe. It took a good long while, and much protest from various posters for Dr. Bob to check it out. He said he didn't want to censor it because it was a "grey area" (he said that since the poster had been victimized in hhis past, he didn't want to discourage him from expressing himself). Excuse me? Someone speaks out hostile comments about an entire ethnic group, due to their negative experiences with a few from that group, and that's a "grey area"...?
Dr. Bob claimed that he didn't know where to draw the line. Again, that doesn't pass the staight-face test, given his stated penchant for wanting to put out a spark before it becomes a forest fire. It's wholly and completely inconsistent with how he's jumped on others -- immediately -- for making similar (& even more mild) comments about other ethnic/religious groups. As he should -- but why the inconsistency?
According to Dr. Bob's own rules, anything which may lead to others feeling put down, needs to be censored. I'm sorry, but "money-grubbing Jews" (which was the mildest of the poster's defamations) definitely crosses the line into what *MAY* lead others to feel put down...!
There was then a public outcry, from those who are Jewish as well as those who are not, protesting Dr. Bob's (utter lack of a) ruling in this situation.
What completely shocked me, is how it took nearly 3 long weeks for Dr. Bob to finally see that what the poster had written was indeed racist (in this case, anti-Semitic). Why so long? Why did it take Dr. Bob so long to see what was so blatantly clear to the rest of us? What sort of a precedent does that set here? In my opinion, Dr. Bob's way-slow sanction was a case of "too little, too late" ... and damage could not be undone.
Now, to be honest, I've thought for a while that perhaps Lou was exaggerating about his claims of anti-Semitism. I'm a woman, and I know I can certainly be hyper-sensitive to perceived misogyny -- IOW, I can see it even where it's not intended, due to a lifetime of having been put down, squelched, ignored, and patronized, due to my gender.
HOWEVER, this is blatant...! People had to talk Dr. Bob into seeing what should have been plain to him. I now see what Lou has been talking about -- it's there. I'm not saying that only anti-Semitism has been glossed over -- likely individuals of various ethnic/religious groups will be more sensitive than those who are not in their groups, about seeing slights stated against them. I'm sure that other forms of racism, sexism and anti-isms have been uttered, with even a few managing to sneak past the deputies and Dr. Bob.
Is the anti-Semitism being allowed (or not directly delt with soon enough) because Lou is the most prolific protester against it...? Is it because some do not care for his posting style, and requests for clarification, and so his posts are thus discounted?
Even if there were no Jewish members of this board, such ethnic slurs should not be allowed, much less declared a "grey area" and shruggged off!
If it happened then, due to some underlying issue, then it's likely still happening now. It's wrong, it needs to be exposed, examined, and set right.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers.""We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something.""Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 8:16:22
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-prhnsipple, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 13:38:36
> I doubt that the patrons in the suit ordered each menu item from the servers one at a time upon successive trips to the table by the server or asked for clarification upon clarification upon clarification such as:
>
> what exactly the item is
>
> what different words mean to the server
>
> what temperature "hot" is
>
> exactly what size "large" represents
>
> what color plate it will be on
>
> what options for different color plates exist
>
> how could the special be sold out and unavailable when it says right here that it exists
>
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> I also doubt that the patrons provided reading material and information to their fellow diners and asked them what they thought "small" meant or "chilled" etc., taking into account said information when forming their reply, of course.
>
> Your behavior plays a role in your interactions here with admin and with the community, Lou, just as the behavior of every other community member including me affects the interactions we each have. I suspect your behavior, Lou, likely would be represented by an outlying data point were it to be quantified and described as part of a data set of the entire community, just as the hypothetical behavior of restaurant patrons I outlined above would be far outside the norm of the behavior of restaurant patrons in general. There is nothing inherently wrong with behavior such as I described above, but it does have consequences. Those consequences are the effect of the BEHAVIOR, and not any character label. .As you notice, I gave no demographic information about the patrons in my scenario. Any conclusions one might make about the reactions of the staff could not be based on any demographic category the patrons might be placed in.
>
> Lou, you could be Jewish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, tall, short, round, purple, pink, brown, beige, yellow, red, striped, spotted, translucent, shimmery, fragrant, prickly, smooth, dressed, undressed, partially dressed, liberal, conservative, multi-ethnic, right-handed, left-handed, ambidextrous, bi-lingual, multi-lingual, mute, deaf, blind, weak, strong, on steroids, on acid, high on life, low on toilet paper, all of the above, none of the above, some of the above, some but not all of the above, different versions of the above at different times or places, etc., and if you still exhibited the same behaviors here at Babble, you would experience the same consequences. Of this I have NO DOUBT.
>
> It is because of this belief that I assess the potential greater good that could come of the admin team putting forth extraordinary efforts to meet your specific needs as very small. I tend to doubt, in fact, that it would even represent a single good to you, as I fear you will never feel satisfied despite anyone's best and extraordinary efforts. And I feel sad about that aspect, because I imagine living in that state would be terribly painful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...that it would even represent a single good to you...I fear you will XXXXX feel satisfied...that state..terribly painful..].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by what you posted here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In [...a single good to you..],if this is related to the notifications being outstanding, could you elaborate on that as to what one good could be that if the notifications of mine that are outstanding were according to the TOS here responded to?
B. If the statement is not related to the outstanding notifications of mine, could you elaborate on what it then is related to?
C. In,[...I fear you will XXXXX feel satisfied...], if this is concerning the outstanding notifications of mine, could you list any facts that you used to conclude in advance that I would XXXXX feel satisfied as to what could cause you to have that fear?
D. In,[...that state...terribly painful...], could you list here what criteria, if any, if this concerns the outstanding notifications of mine, that you used to think that that would be the state that I would be in if the notifications of mine were responded to?
E. Is it possible, in your opinion, that I could be in another state?
F. other good and just explanations of yourpost to me here.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 10:29:53
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck?, posted by Lou PIlder on July 21, 2008, at 9:51:57
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > > Lou
> > > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> > >
> > > 10derHeart,
> > > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> > Lou
> > PS
> > the correction to the link above is:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
> LouFriends,
It is written here,[...utt*rly and compl*tly m*st*k*n you tr*ly are...].
The generally accepted meaning of {utterly} could be to mean that what is in consideration is {absolute}, having no exception, or {unquestionable}.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could reply to me with your clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What facts did you use, if any, to conclude that I am utterly and truly XXXXXX?
B. could you include in any response to my request here what could be seen in the threads in the links that I have cited in this thread along with the following thread? Here is a link to one post of that thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402743.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 10:37:29
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rvrnegpt » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 10:29:53
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2008, at 12:26:24
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-nevrsieghnver? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 8:16:22
> gardenergirl,
>
> E. Is it possible, in your opinion, that I could be in another state?Unless you're at home, it's possible you are in another state. The internet is practically everywhere now. ;)
> F. other good and just explanations of your post to me here.
My post came from my mind, my heart, and my experiences. I don't think that can be easily measured or operationalized, and I wouldn't try.
That's all I've got on this matter at the moment, Lou. This is not a new topic for us to converse about, and my feelings and thoughts about it are not new either. I'm obviously not going to affect your opinions, and I wouldn't bet on mine changing all that much anytime soon, either, though you never know. Oops, I said "never" again!
Regards,
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 11:39:35
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rvrnegpt » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 10:29:53
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> > > >
> > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > > > Friends,
> > > > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > > > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> > > Lou
> > > PS
> > > the correction to the link above is:
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...utt*rly and compl*tly m*st*k*n you tr*ly are...].
> The generally accepted meaning of {utterly} could be to mean that what is in consideration is {absolute}, having no exception, or {unquestionable}.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could reply to me with your clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. What facts did you use, if any, to conclude that I am utterly and truly XXXXXX?
> B. could you include in any response to my request here what could be seen in the threads in the links that I have cited in this thread along with the following thread? Here is a link to one post of that thread.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402743.html
> Lou
>
>
Friends,
If you are considering responding here , I am requesting that you consider the following in regards to this topic under discussion here.
I could explain what the bible verse in question means from my perspective, due to that the translation uses a word, {but}, that is not in the Greek that that bible uses to translate the verse. In order for me to explain it though, I would need to post the foundation of my faith in relation to a revelation, which is what is the foundation of that I believe it because it is from a revelation.
One of the issue is {belief}, and if this can not be seen from your reading of the thread, you could email me if you like for further explanation from me and I will use the foundation of my faith, which is the same as the foundation of Judaism.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743754.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 21:27:37
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rvrnafica, posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 11:39:35
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > > > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > > > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > > > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > > > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > > > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > > > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > > > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > > > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> > > > >
> > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > > > > Friends,
> > > > > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > > > > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> > > > Lou
> > > > PS
> > > > the correction to the link above is:
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...utt*rly and compl*tly m*st*k*n you tr*ly are...].
> > The generally accepted meaning of {utterly} could be to mean that what is in consideration is {absolute}, having no exception, or {unquestionable}.
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could reply to me with your clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > A. What facts did you use, if any, to conclude that I am utterly and truly XXXXXX?
> > B. could you include in any response to my request here what could be seen in the threads in the links that I have cited in this thread along with the following thread? Here is a link to one post of that thread.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402743.html
> > Lou
> >
> >
> Friends,
> If you are considering responding here , I am requesting that you consider the following in regards to this topic under discussion here.
> I could explain what the bible verse in question means from my perspective, due to that the translation uses a word, {but}, that is not in the Greek that that bible uses to translate the verse. In order for me to explain it though, I would need to post the foundation of my faith in relation to a revelation, which is what is the foundation of that I believe it because it is from a revelation.
> One of the issue is {belief}, and if this can not be seen from your reading of the thread, you could email me if you like for further explanation from me and I will use the foundation of my faith, which is the same as the foundation of Judaism.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743754.html
> Lou
Friends,
If you are considering responding here in this thread, I am requesting that you consider the following.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/742595.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 27, 2008, at 11:24:49
In reply to Lou's request for cosideration-ighbhelev, posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 21:27:37
Friends,
If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on July 28, 2008, at 4:40:26
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on July 17, 2008, at 20:10:49
>People could feel put down if its suggested that they might be missing the point of heaven:
I'm on record as saying I not only don't see the virtues of heaven but that it is a petit bourgeois event I would prefer to miss.
>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.
Like me, for example.
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 13:30:39
In reply to Lou's request for cosideration-dnialfala, posted by Lou PIlder on July 27, 2008, at 11:24:49
> Friends,
> If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
> http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
> http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
> http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
> LouFriends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links to see the fallacy of [...Affirming the consequent...].
I think that if you look at that before you post, that it may be easier to see that fallacy if it comes up.
Affirming the consequent usually goes along with arguments in the form if this than that.
here are two links and the second one could be used for looking into other fallacies that may be seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming-_the _consequent
http://www.don_lindsay_archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 14:30:39
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-afmgtheconsqnt » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 13:30:39
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
> > http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
> > http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
> > http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links to see the fallacy of [...Affirming the consequent...].
> I think that if you look at that before you post, that it may be easier to see that fallacy if it comes up.
> Affirming the consequent usually goes along with arguments in the form if this than that.
> here are two links and the second one could be used for looking into other fallacies that may be seen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming-_the _consequent
> http://www.don_lindsay_archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
> LouFriends,
Here are the correted links for [...Affirming the consequent...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
http://www.don-lindsay-archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
Lou
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.