![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 82 to 106 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam, posted by Lou PIlder on July 30, 2008, at 17:00:03
Friends,
If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:11:25
In reply to Lou's request -schoughalovtubhufalough, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> there is an underscore between my name and the 1188The corrected link is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.html
Posted by Dena on September 23, 2008, at 17:47:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun » Dena, posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:13:00
> I'll try not to personalize this, although it's hard for me. I felt hurt when I read your post. I'm not saying that's your intent.
>
> I do my best not to kick or malign anyone.
>
> As I told Lou, I don't have any claims to perfection.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the delay, Dinah -- I've been out of town the last several days.
I'm also sorry that what I said hurt you -- that wasn't my intention. I tried to avoid that by saying that I saw problems with the *system* here in the administration, not with the *individuals*. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, personally. I see you as a person trying to make a difference for others, trying to make this world (your corner of it, your sphere of influence) a better place -- but I see that you're quite hampered by a system that attempts (likely through good, yet controlling intentions) to keep things "in check"... I see that system backfiring, and actually causing more harm than it's trying to prevent.
Again -- my opinion, based on my experience, and my observations. YMMV.
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 September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
> > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> >
> > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
> In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your ratrionale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
> > > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> > >
> > > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > [Dr.] Hsiung,
> > You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> > Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> > [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> > If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> > In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> > I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> > If you are wanting to mean that the statement in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statement has not been addressed in the past posts where it appears, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> [Dr.] Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your rationale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
> Lou Pilder
Posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to [Dr.] Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
how come you changed Mr to Dr ?
Took me awhiles to figger it eh?!!LOL!!!!
Cuz he both ain't he?
Lotsa times I just call him Bob, cuz he NOT above me.
He just a dude.
Ya that Bob dude annoys the hoo outta me LOL!
Love to hate THAT dude.
But reckon he knows that and don't give a rats *ss bout it.
Ha!
Not meaning to put ya down OK Gee gee, cuz I no bettern nobody either. Just was genuinely curious is all.
Respond or not, best wishes and all K?
Ya!
Posted by Geegee on September 26, 2008, at 16:39:50
In reply to how come? » Geegee, posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
Thanks for asking, muffled.
I don't know how Dr. Bob feels about using proper titles. My reason for editing is not about Dr. Bob, rather, it's about how I was brought up and what I believe regarding addressing others using titles. And it's about inferences I've made regarding this specific behavior. It's a personal thing for me. I'm sure I'll get bored with it sooner or later. :)
Warmly,
gg
Posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 18:21:29
In reply to Re: how come? » muffled, posted by Geegee on September 26, 2008, at 16:39:50
>Thanks for asking, muffled.
I don't know how Dr. Bob feels about using proper titles. My reason for editing is not about Dr. Bob, rather, it's about how I was brought up and what I believe regarding addressing others using titles. And it's about inferences I've made regarding this specific behavior. It's a personal thing for me. I'm sure I'll get bored with it sooner or later. :)
Warmly,
gg
ROFL!!! ya I noticed it down below after too!!!
Like the Mom likes to be called MRS. Muffled by the kids right? Like she don't like the kids using her first name cuz SHE wants a title, even LOL it just ol Mrs!!!!!
Only title she ever gonna get!
Ha!
Thanks for replying to me cuz I just couldn't figger it.
Mystery solved!
But now there's ANUTHER mystery cuz I be thinking bout the gg, and I thinking mebbe I know you!!!
Mebbe not, but if I right... HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Ya!
Posted by Geegee on September 27, 2008, at 0:39:52
In reply to Re: how come?, posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 18:21:29
> ROFL!!! ya I noticed it down below after too!!!
> Like the Mom likes to be called MRS. Muffled by the kids right? Like she don't like the kids using her first name cuz SHE wants a title, even LOL it just ol Mrs!!!!!lol, something like that, though I remember quite clearly meeting a new neighbor who said, "And the kids can call me [First name]" and my mom quickly said, "They'll call you Mrs. X." That's how I was brought up. Elders were Mr. or Mrs. or Dr. or whatever, not something other than the utmost respect. At least until they invited you to call them something else, and even then, not until we were adults ourselves.
> But now there's ANUTHER mystery cuz I be thinking bout the gg, and I thinking mebbe I know you!!!It's me. I got a bit worried about my privacy recently, and so I changed my name slightly. It looks weird to me, but I tried to keep it as something that would seem familiar.
gg
Posted by muffled on September 27, 2008, at 9:53:56
In reply to Re: how come? » muffled, posted by Geegee on September 27, 2008, at 0:39:52
Hey, glad to see you :-) Good name choice.
Sorry last post was unclear.
But I am the Mom and where we live the majority of kids call adults by their first names and I hate it!
I was brought up same as you. Even in adulthood I still felt uncomfortable calling adults by first name.
My Dad has a doctorate, but he rarely if ever used his title. he was a first name or just Mr. mostly.
He came from hardscrabble beginnings and worked hard to get his doctorate, but he also understood that others who worked just as hard didn't have titles for whatever reason.
So thats why I tend to avoid the Dr. title. Dr. Bob is not MY Dr., so he is Bob to me.
Cuz maybe I too had the smarts for a doctorate but I didn't have the mental health or money to do so.
Doesn't make me less than the guy with the title.
Doesn't mean the guy with the title doesn't got plenty of his own probs.
Just different ones.
We all got our own life path.
So I call Dr. R. Hsiung just Bob, because he is no better OR worse!!!! LOL! than me.
:-)
OK rant over!
Thanks for reminding me that my Dad is a good guy. I should visit.
This has been fun, thanks.
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2008, at 15:50:35
In reply to correction to link, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:11:25
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> > There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
>
> The corrected link is:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.htmlFriends,
If you are considering posting a response in this thread, or parallel threads, I am asking that you click on the link here that brings up a post to a thread. In the thread, there are no post from 10/18/04 to 10/25/04.
This aspect that there are no posts for the 6 days between those posts could be important to those IMO that are interested in posting in regards to the issues here. If you are interested in this aspect and would like to discuss that with me, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407530.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 7:12:13
In reply to Lou's request to discussants-mhschrum, posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2008, at 15:50:35
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> > > There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > > there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
> >
> > The corrected link is:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.html
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response in this thread, or parallel threads, I am asking that you click on the link here that brings up a post to a thread. In the thread, there are no post from 10/18/04 to 10/25/04.
> This aspect that there are no posts for the 6 days between those posts could be important to those IMO that are interested in posting in regards to the issues here. If you are interested in this aspect and would like to discuss that with me, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407530.htmlFriends,
If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by Mr. Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 10:46:44
In reply to Lou's request to discussants-fctsvthematr, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 7:12:13
> Friends,
> If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.htmlNope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
> C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netRegards,
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 11:51:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request to discussants-fctsvthematr » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 10:46:44
>
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> > A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> > B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
>
> Nope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
>
> > C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> > If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Regards,
>
> ggFriends,
It is written here a response to that does it mean that {leaving a post up} means that {no rule has been broken}?
Let us look at what came directly from Mr. Hsiung, as he writes,"right".
Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him as to if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing about it, that he thinks then that it was not against the rules.
Here is the link to his statement:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Now then there is the question of posts here being allowed to stand after they have been called to Mr. Hsiung's attention.
Then there is the question as to what is an antisemitic post?
Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him about that in that does if a statement puts down Jews and is uncivil as other uncivil posts are determined, then is it an antisemitic post?
He replied,{...I think that sounds right...].
Here is the link to that;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs439314.html
If you are considering responding to this thread, I would like for you to take into consideration those statements that came directly from Mr. Hsiung here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 12:18:50
In reply to Lou's reply-eqingloza » Geegee, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 11:51:43
> >
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> > > A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> > > B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
> >
> > Nope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
> >
> > > C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> > > If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> > > Lou
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > gg
>
> Friends,
> It is written here a response to that does it mean that {leaving a post up} means that {no rule has been broken}?
> Let us look at what came directly from Mr. Hsiung, as he writes,"right".
> Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him as to if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing about it, that he thinks then that it was not against the rules.
> Here is the link to his statement:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> Now then there is the question of posts here being allowed to stand after they have been called to Mr. Hsiung's attention.
> Then there is the question as to what is an antisemitic post?
> Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him about that in that does if a statement puts down Jews and is uncivil as other uncivil posts are determined, then is it an antisemitic post?
> He replied,{...I think that sounds right...].
> Here is the link to that;
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs439314.html
> If you are considering responding to this thread, I would like for you to take into consideration those statements that came directly from Mr. Hsiung here.
> LouFriends,
The original question from me to Mr. Hsiung is in the following link. That question was then replied to Dinah.
Here is the link to the original question by me to Mr. Hsiung.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423270.html
Then there is a link that in the correected form is;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
This then brings up the relationship between posts that are allowed to stand, which could mean those posts that were directed to Mr. Hsiung and no action was taken. Those posts could fall into a different catagory than post that have not been asked to be addressed and are not addressed.
Lou
Posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
In reply to *corrections* Lou's reply-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 12:18:50
When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 15:34:18
In reply to Re: *corrections* » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
> When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
>
> I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,[...posts standing that were.. brought to the admin's attention..that is different...].
The fact here is that Mr. Hsiung has posted that it is right that one can assume that if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. (citation facts13).
To be brought to his attention could be done in many ways.
A.by emailing him
B.by posting the statement in question as a request for a determination
C.by others posting the statement as an identification and seeking from him a reason as to why nothing has been done.
D. by using the notification system
E. by using the babblemail system
F. By seeing that he has responded to the post in the thread and that his response could mean that he knows of it.
G. other possible ways
So when members see posts that have had nothing done to them, and they are of the nature that they , let's say, could lead a Jew or someone else to feel put down or accused by the post, they could rely on the fact that Mr. Hsiung writes that if nothing is done then he thinks it is not against the rules to post such. What also needs then to be determined is if it has been brought to Mr. Hsiung's attention. That could or could not be determined if the member wants to use the usual ways to find out. But could not some posts have obvious statements of the nature in question so that if there has not been something to bring it to his attention that can be seen, that their could have been and that no search for such could be made?
As to how many of those type are here, members have emailed me and asked me for them and if anyoe would like them, they could email me for posts of that nature.
Then in the types where I post a reminder that a notification is outstanding, members can email me to find out which post it is. They could then forward it to others.
As to one assuming that any post that has had nothing done is not against the rules, I do not know what could annul the fact that Mr. Hsiung has written here that those type that have been brought to his attention and have had nothing done are not against the rules if the person that sees the post in question knows that it has been brought to his attention. Also, one could use the TOS and the past practice that states what is uncivil to make their own determiniation and it may be plainly visible.
Then there is the fact that Mr. Hsiung states that he does what will be good for the community as a whole and to trust what he does. This could mean IMO that a post that has nothing done and has been asked to review in some way, and is plainly visible to have , let's say, statements that could lead a Jew or somwone else to feel put down or accused, could IMO lead a person to think that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it stand with nothing done even if there is something in the post that the one reading it thinks could lead a person to feel accused or put down and think that those statements of that nature are not against the rules. Is that not a fact? There are many examples on the board here now in statements and in links brought up by concerned members here and it is a fact that Mr. Hsiung has written to not post a link to a web site that has antisemitic content, period. (citation rspct 4)
I ask, could you post in your opinions, why posts that have been identified so far here of the nature in question are not addressed and could anull the fact of what Mr. Hsiung writes here? If you could, then I could rspond accordingly
Lou
citation (fact13)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
citation(rspct4). I would like those interested in this one to email me for that post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 16:03:53
In reply to Re: *corrections* » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
> When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
>
> I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,[...it has all been said before...]
I am unsure as to what posts you are meaning to include as to that they say what you posted here. Could you post the links to some of the posts that you are using to write that [...it has all been said before...]?
If you could , then I could have the opportunity to post my response as to that I am unsure what post(s) could anull the fact that posts that have nothing done to them {could} be uncivil if they have statements that could lead, let's say, a Jew or others to feel put down/accused as per those that are posted now by concerned members asking why those were not addressed
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2008, at 16:09:31
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
> > > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> > >
> > > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> > Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> > [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> > If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> > In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> > I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> > If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
> > In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your ratrionale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dena on January 18, 2009, at 14:31:51
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.Dena here: Going back to this ... in a recent notification, I showed that a link to someone's church site had a statement that "only" people who believe as they do can come to God. That would leave out a great many, including Jews. Excluding the Jews is anti-Semitic.
I was told that that particular church is not Anti-Semitic (that they often allow Jews to use their facilities), but that church also rebaptizes deceased Jews (by proxy) ... *against the wishes* of the Jewish families. This implies, strongly, that the Jews are not "good enough" as they are (as Jews), and that they must be "changed" in order to come to God.
No matter *what* the politically-correct stance is of the church, upfront to the public (& honestly, Wikipedia, which can be altered by anyone, as a legitimate source?!?), their practices show what they *really* believe, which is that Jews are not acceptable as Jews, unless and until those Jews are rebaptized into *that particular church*, even against their will.
And THAT is anti-Semitic.
And THAT is not denounced here.
The website that promotes this practice, the website that says "only" those who believe as they do can "be saved", is allowed to remain on this forum, and is backed up by the moderators/deputies who responded to my notification.
This is in absolute defiance to Dr. Bob's stated guidelines. It has been justified by twisting statements, but the fact remains: this forum allows anti-Semitic statements and practices to be supported and promoted, by NOT removing a link to the church that does this very thing.
How is this integrity?
How is this right?
How does this NOT lead to Jews feeling put down?
C'mon, let's get real & honest. Just admit that a mistake has been made, and rectify it.
Simple.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2009, at 3:08:09
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on January 18, 2009, at 14:31:51
> The [link to the] website that promotes this practice ... is allowed to remain on this forum, and is backed up by the moderators/deputies who responded to my notification.
>
> This is in absolute defiance to Dr. Bob's stated guidelines. It has been justified by twisting statementsIf we see a problem with something someone posts, our policy isn't to delete it, but to ask the poster please to be more careful (it's the first time for them) or to block them from posting for a period of time (if it isn't):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Also, please don't post anything that could lead others (such as deputies) to feel accused (for example, of twisting statements).
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual or group) = 3
block length = 2.88 rounded = 3 weeks
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 19, 2009, at 19:09:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dena, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2009, at 3:08:09
Somehow, this seems punitive.
To me, anyways. Excuse me for not using the notification button for expressing my general displeasure. It's not expressed at anyone in particular but in the general flavour of the atmosphere. Somewhat like, Who cut the cheese?
pc
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
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.Dinah,
I am requesting that you clarify some aspects of your statement here in;
[...If I believed that the administration of this site was anti-Semitic, I would not be part of it...]
The grammatical structure has for me a want for infomation so that I could post my response to you here.
You have defined your use of {the administration of the site} as to like the way that the site is run. This has me to want to know as to if you are wanting to mean any of the folllowing:
The administration would be anti-Semitic in your thinking if;
A. a member of the administration posted something that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused?
B. the members of the administration would be unwilling to sanction a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused as being uncivil?
C. The members of the administration would allow for a significant time lag to elapse in relation to addressing concerns about a statement that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down/accused.
D. The mambers of the administration would allow statements to go unsanctioned that promulgated replacement theology.
E. other things that members of the administration will allow or do that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused that are not stated here.
Then in your statement that you would not be part of {it}, I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean that as to what the {it} could be, so is the meaning of the {it};
F. that you would resign from the membership of the administeration if that was the case in any part of A-E?
or
G. you would not participate in items A-E, but still remain part of the administration membership?
H. something else?
If you could clarify these things here , then I could post my response accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 8:33:12
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-NYNY » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
I'm sorry that my statement's grammatical structure allowed for confusion, but I think I did the best I could in structuring it. I stand by my statement.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 10:50:29
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-NYNY » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
> > 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.
>
> Dinah,
> I am requesting that you clarify some aspects of your statement here in;
> [...If I believed that the administration of this site was anti-Semitic, I would not be part of it...]
> The grammatical structure has for me a want for infomation so that I could post my response to you here.
> You have defined your use of {the administration of the site} as to like the way that the site is run. This has me to want to know as to if you are wanting to mean any of the folllowing:
> The administration would be anti-Semitic in your thinking if;
> A. a member of the administration posted something that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused?
> B. the members of the administration would be unwilling to sanction a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused as being uncivil?
> C. The members of the administration would allow for a significant time lag to elapse in relation to addressing concerns about a statement that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down/accused.
> D. The mambers of the administration would allow statements to go unsanctioned that promulgated replacement theology.
> E. other things that members of the administration will allow or do that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused that are not stated here.
> Then in your statement that you would not be part of {it}, I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean that as to what the {it} could be, so is the meaning of the {it};
> F. that you would resign from the membership of the administeration if that was the case in any part of A-E?
> or
> G. you would not participate in items A-E, but still remain part of the administration membership?
> H. something else?
> If you could clarify these things here , then I could post my response accordingly.
> LouFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am asking that you consider the folllowing in any post that you may add here.
The statement in question now is by Dinah,
[...If I believed that the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it...].
A. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean as to what constitutes if the adminstration of a site is or is not anti-Semitic
B. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean by that if the administration was anti-Semitic that she would {not be part of *it*}.
If I was to know those, then I could respond accordingly. At this time, if you could post your opinions, if anyone has them, here after reading this post, then I think that I could have a better understanding of what Dinah is wanting to mean by using your opinions and then respond accordingly.
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.