![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 15:32:41
In reply to RECOVERED!!!!!!! from PSSD AND ANHEDONIA!!!!!! » Conundrum, posted by ggggg123 on December 8, 2010, at 14:42:25
> you were quite rude to me
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. If you want to be proactive, you could ask another poster to be your civility buddy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceConundrum, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Maxime on December 18, 2010, at 15:32:41
In reply to Re: blocked for week » ggggg123, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2010, at 19:17:00
> > you were quite rude to me
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
>
> I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks. If you want to be proactive, you could ask another poster to be your civility buddy:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
>
> More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Conundrum, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobI don't understand this block. gggg123 started off by saying "although you were rude to me" but then the rest of her post is a clear step by step help for conundrum on how to use Licorice root. The post even ends "One last note, please ride through the ups and downs of starting licorice root, keep persevering and you will succeed!" That is very positive. Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
I will never understand blocks. *shakes head* Maybe it's best that I don't.
Posted by morgan miller on December 18, 2010, at 15:33:42
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
Maybe if gggg123 said, "I Thought you were quite rude to me", or, "It seemed like you were being rude to me", he would have just gotten a warning? I guess gggg123 did something before to deserve a block. I don't think this is the first thing gggg123 without any previous warnings, but if it was, then I believe this was an unreasonable block.
I hear what you are saying Maxime, gggg123 left a post that was well intentioned and very positive. I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
Posted by SLS on December 18, 2010, at 15:33:42
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
Hi.
> Maybe if gggg123 said, "I Thought you were quite rude to me", or, "It seemed like you were being rude to me", he would have just gotten a warning?
"Rude" is a word indicating a judgment of character or intent, usually used pejoratively, and is taken to be a form of assault.
Maybe say something like this: "I was angered by the words you chose to use towards me. I felt attacked.
Maybe say nothing at all? This is sometimes a very sensible tactic to prevent escalation and retaliation. However, if no one were to ever offer feedback regarding another's behaviors, learning opportunities may be left unrealized. Then again, silence can be the most persuasive argument. My feeling is that none of us has a duty to comment on or attempt to correct the behaviors of others.
- Scott
Posted by morgan miller on December 18, 2010, at 15:33:42
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
>"Rude" is a word indicating a judgment of character or intent, usually used pejoratively, and is taken to be a form of assault.
I really do understand what you are saying here Scott. I just think this forum is holding people up to standards that I personally am not sure any forum should. If the standards are not changed, the way that people are dealt with in terms of enforcing the rules should be. I don't even know why I'm talking about this here.
>My feeling is that none of us has a duty to comment on or attempt to correct the behaviors of others.
So I guess you disagree with the idea that we should come along and help a fellow member help themselves.
Posted by SLS on December 18, 2010, at 15:33:43
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
> >"Rude" is a word indicating a judgment of character or intent, usually used pejoratively, and is taken to be a form of assault.
>
> I really do understand what you are saying here Scott. I just think this forum is holding people up to standards that I personally am not sure any forum should.It is a quandary. Moderation is important. However, for what wordings are people punished for posting, and what should the punishment be?
> If the standards are not changed, the way that people are dealt with in terms of enforcing the rules should be.
Can you offer suggestions for specific improvements?
> I don't even know why I'm talking about this here.
Maybe because you care about a patient being transported by an ambulance to nowhere.
> > My feeling is that none of us has a duty to comment on or attempt to correct the behaviors of others.> So I guess you disagree with the idea that we should come along and help a fellow member help themselves.
I disagree that this behavior should become a forum doctrine and a requirement of membership.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 16:11:08
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by morgan miller on December 18, 2010, at 15:33:42
> Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
>
> Maxime> I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
>
> morgan millerYes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2010, at 17:43:12
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 16:11:08
> > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> >
> > Maxime
>
> > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> >
> > morgan miller
>
> Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
>
> I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
C. If not, could you post here why not?
D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Phillipa on December 18, 2010, at 20:30:41
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 16:11:08
Dr Bob I feel you've encouraged us to help others avoid a block. But if the two people work it out as the thread indicates isn't that like in real life when folks work out problems. May start with argument and diffuse over time? Short time. I must google rude. As in real life I hear for example teachers asking children or parents not to be rude? I could understand if escalated. But it didn't? Just my thought. Phillipa
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:00:30
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 16:11:08
>I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
True, though it is highly unlikely to get a ticket for speeding 5 to 7 mph over the limit. Thus, I believe a bit more flexibility and patience in some circumstances could be helpful to the greater good.
Posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 9:39:17
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:00:30
> >I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
>
> True, though it is highly unlikely to get a ticket for speeding 5 to 7 mph over the limit. Thus, I believe a bit more flexibility and patience in some circumstances could be helpful to the greater good.
Very good, and intriguing point.Solstice
Posted by violette on December 19, 2010, at 11:32:25
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 0:00:30
I had similar thoughts Morgan. In fact-it would be unsafe for drivers to continually monitor their speedometer to ensure that they do not go 1 or 2 or 3...miles over the speed limit. It could even cause more harm than good, potentially increasing the amount of accidents because people would be so focused on their speedometers that they might not be able to react as quickly in the event an oncoming vehicle was headed their way.
>I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.True, though it is highly unlikely to get a ticket for speeding 5 to 7 mph over the limit. Thus, I believe a bit more flexibility and patience in some circumstances could be helpful to the greater good.
Posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 11:58:41
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2010, at 16:11:08
> > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> >
> > Maxime
>
> > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> >
> > morgan miller
>
> Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
>
> I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
>
> BobI haven't the time to go thru the whole sequence of events, and I don't know of the posters involved relationship w/each other, so I could be off base.
But taken on what I have read in this particular thread about this...well :( It does seem to be a prome example of one of the things that REALLY bothers me (and likely others) here at this babble forum.
There's three aspects that come to me.
1. the lack of warning. If this had been me, I would have been shocked and hurt at a block in this circumstance
2. that an actual BLOCK for something that really isn't a major infraction
3. And all would have been MUCH better served if it had been let go and have given the posters the ability themselves work it out, or at least have the opportunity to do so.WE ARE NOT PERFECT. We WILL screw up. And sometimes there ARE fights, and you know what?, they blow over, they pass, and things settle again. Utopia is NOT achievable here on earth.
And in trying to achieve some utopian place, all your are making is a scarey place where NOONE can live up to these rigid standards.
I know I can't, and that frightens me.
I think the worst of it is the shame for me.
And the sense that you don't think of me as having the intelligence/ability to sort out my mistakes with others. NO, you would just banish me away like an incompetant fool who has no brain, so I must be just sent away.
Can you not see Bob that there are in fact MORE negatives in this particular scenario?
That its just punitive, and maybe is 'supposed' to teach....but what does it really teach? Its like smacking my kid upside the head when he calls his sister 'stupid'. What does that teach my child? So I GUIDE my son towards a better resolution, I don't smack him in the head, I give him the chance to make a better decision.(well...being not perfect, I can't say I have NEVER smacked my kids....:-0!!! I been known to give them 'flicks' in the head lol, and those can hurt!).
But seriously, Bob, I wish SO bad that you could understand what so many of us are saying about your methods.
You are ruling by fear, rather than kindness.
:(
I don't know how to make you understand.
Maybe you need to read up on child trauma, and adopting these kids, and how to work with them etc....you'd learn alot about how to work with ALL people reading this material...
I wish I typed fast like Soltice and I could have time whislt my brain is functioning well, and outline what I think to be more gentle yet effective parameters.
But really, I have tried so hard in the past, and you never seem to 'get it'. And here I am still trying....
Anyhow, got to go.
Best wishes in this season.
M
Posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 18:27:28
In reply to Re: being helpful and encouraging, posted by violette on December 19, 2010, at 11:32:25
> I had similar thoughts Morgan. In fact-it would be unsafe for drivers to continually monitor their speedometer to ensure that they do not go 1 or 2 or 3...miles over the speed limit. It could even cause more harm than good, potentially increasing the amount of accidents because people would be so focused on their speedometers that they might not be able to react as quickly in the event an oncoming vehicle was headed their way.
I was also thinking that people are not ticketed so strictly by law enforcement so that the population of driver's is not getting too easily discouraged by failed efforts to follow the speed limit that came so close.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2010, at 23:06:36
In reply to Bob, this may be an excellent example... » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 11:58:41
> if the two people work it out as the thread indicates isn't that like in real life when folks work out problems.
>
> PhillipaWhat do you see as indicating that they worked it out?
--
> 1. the lack of warning.
The warning:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101107/msgs/969409.html
> 2. an actual BLOCK for something that really isn't a major infraction
First blocks are usually for 1 week regardless of the infraction:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> 3. And all would have been MUCH better served if it had been let go and have given the posters the ability themselves work it out, or at least have the opportunity to do so.
He had over 24 hours to apologize or rephrase, and others had over 24 hours to encourage him to do so.
> WE ARE NOT PERFECT. We WILL screw up. And sometimes there ARE fights, and you know what?, they blow over, they pass, and things settle again. Utopia is NOT achievable here on earth.
When posters screw up, sometimes there are consequences. Utopia isn't achievable. But blocks pass. Here they do, anyway.
> And in trying to achieve some utopian place, all your are making is a scarey place where NOONE can live up to these rigid standards.
> I know I can't, and that frightens me.
> I think the worst of it is the shame for me.
> And the sense that you don't think of me as having the intelligence/ability to sort out my mistakes with others. NO, you would just banish me away like an incompetant fool who has no brain, so I must be just sent away.LOTS of posters are able to follow the guidelines. Only 1 out of every 2500 posts results in a block:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/947061.html
Maybe try to replace shame with mature guilt?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/958778.html
> Its like smacking my kid upside the head when he calls his sister 'stupid'. What does that teach my child? So I GUIDE my son towards a better resolution, I don't smack him in the head, I give him the chance to make a better decision.
I guide posters to water, but I can't make them drink.
> Best wishes in this season.
>
> MThanks, same to you,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 15:24:18
In reply to Lou's response-everyone? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2010, at 17:43:12
> > > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> > >
> > > Maxime
> >
> > > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> > >
> > > morgan miller
> >
> > Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
> >
> > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
> I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
> A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
> B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
> C. If not, could you post here why not?
> D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
> E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
> F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
> G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
> H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
> K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
> L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2011, at 20:26:15
In reply to Lou's reminder-kunptrulknthnt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 15:24:18
> > > > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> > > >
> > > > Maxime
> > >
> > > > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> > > >
> > > > morgan miller
> > >
> > > Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
> > >
> > > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
> > I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
> > A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
> > B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
> > C. If not, could you post here why not?
> > D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
> > E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
> > F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
> > H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
> > K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
> > L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder procedure, the above.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your provision to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2012, at 9:55:29
In reply to Lou's reminder-dhamazturmyn, posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2011, at 20:26:15
> > > > > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxime
> > > >
> > > > > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> > > > >
> > > > > morgan miller
> > > >
> > > > Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
> > > >
> > > > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
> > > I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
> > > A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
> > > B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
> > > C. If not, could you post here why not?
> > > D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
> > > E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
> > > F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > > G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
> > > H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
> > > K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
> > > L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In regards to your reminder procedure, the above.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your provision to keep reminding you, the above.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In reagrds to your provision to keep eminding you, the above
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2014, at 11:21:30
In reply to Lou's response-everyone? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2010, at 17:43:12
> > > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> > >
> > > Maxime
> >
> > > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> > >
> > > morgan miller
> >
> > Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
> >
> > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
> I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
> A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
> B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
> C. If not, could you post here why not?
> D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
> E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
> F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
> G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
> H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
> K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
> L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
> Lou PilderFriends,
I an asking that you review the questions that I have here to Mr. Hsiung and be a discussant in parallel threads and/or threads involving the concern of mine that anti-Semitic statements are being allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive and will be good for the community as a whole as that those statements are not repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record. One in question now is ,[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...] which a subset of readers could think is analogous to ,[...only Christians can enter heaven...].
Mr Hsiung states that he will respond to notifications but he will give himself the option to not respond to my notifications and the questions above are also not responded to so a subset of readers could think that he is giving himself the option to not respond to me at all. His rationale posted here is that if readers see that he does not respond to me, then this could encourage others to not respond to me. That is true, but are you one of those people that are influenced by Mr. Hsiung in any way to not respond to me? If so, what is influencing you to not respond to me? Could not Mr. Hsiung by posting such create stigmatization toward me and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held? And could his option to not respond to me, that he says could influence others to not respond to me, create hostile and disagreeable feelings toward me?
I am trying to save lives here and purge the anti-Semitic statements out of here. I am asking that you join me in my goal.
Won't you be my neighbor.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2014, at 11:34:24
In reply to Lou's response-pstigmah, posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2014, at 11:21:30
> > > > Why pick on one "although you were rude to me" when the rest of the post is helpful and encouraging?
> > > >
> > > > Maxime
> > >
> > > > I guess it doesn't matter what the main message or majority of content of the message was, it just takes a small statement that violates the rules to get a warning and subsequent block.
> > > >
> > > > morgan miller
> > >
> > > Yes, even a small statement can lead someone to feel accused or put down.
> > >
> > > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Yiu wrote,[...I expext everyone to be civil all the time...]
> > I am unsure as to whatt you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answrs here to the followinng, I could have the opportunity to post my response to what ou post to me.
> > A. In your use of that {everyone} is to be civil all the time, are you included in the {everyone} or is the word just for your guests here?
> > B. Civil means conducive to the harmony and welfare of the the commmunity. If that be the case, could the function(s) of the administration be considerd by you to regulate the harmony and welfare of the members?
> > C. If not, could you post here why not?
> > D. Now if the administration thinks that by doing the functions of the administration could regulate the harmony and welfare of the group, then could it also be considerd by you that the administration could harm the harmony and welfare of the members by not fulfilling their adminstrative functions?
> > E. If so, could it be considerd by you that leaving notifications outstanding and also requests for clarification and such and requests for your rationales outstanding cause disharmony and also be detrimental to the welfare of a member or members?
> > F. If you do not consider that the administrative functions , in particular but not limited to outstanding notifications and outstanding requests, could affect the harmony annd welfare of tthe members here, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > G You state here that your administrative function is to not let a match be, for one match could cause a forest fire. Would you agree then that by leaving notifications and requests outstanding that by doing so there could be a potential danger to a person or persons from what is left to have the potential of escalating like a fire?
> > H. You write here that you take responsibility for what you write. If one here is harmed by the nature that a post is not sanctioned and notifications were not acted on, could you consider taking the responsibility of the harm if there is harm, such as a suicide or if one becomes a victim of violence due to the unsantioned statemennt that could lead to ill-will being fosterd to a person or persons?
> > K. If in that scenerio, if it happens, and you will not accept responsibility, could you post here your rationale for such, even if it is due to negligence in perfomimg administrative functions?
> > L. would you be willing to delete the entire threads where my notifications are outstanding and then reinstate them after the notifications are acted on? If not, could you post here your rationale for such?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Friends,
> I an asking that you review the questions that I have here to Mr. Hsiung and be a discussant in parallel threads and/or threads involving the concern of mine that anti-Semitic statements are being allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive and will be good for the community as a whole as that those statements are not repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record. One in question now is ,[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...] which a subset of readers could think is analogous to ,[...only Christians can enter heaven...].
> Mr Hsiung states that he will respond to notifications but he will give himself the option to not respond to my notifications and the questions above are also not responded to so a subset of readers could think that he is giving himself the option to not respond to me at all. His rationale posted here is that if readers see that he does not respond to me, then this could encourage others to not respond to me. That is true, but are you one of those people that are influenced by Mr. Hsiung in any way to not respond to me? If so, what is influencing you to not respond to me? Could not Mr. Hsiung by posting such create stigmatization toward me and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held? And could his option to not respond to me, that he says could influence others to not respond to me, create hostile and disagreeable feelings toward me?
> I am trying to save lives here and purge the anti-Semitic statements out of here. I am asking that you join me in my goal.
> Won't you be my neighbor.
> LouFriends,
My apology for posting more than 3 consecutive posts.
Lou
Posted by SLS on April 1, 2014, at 14:59:23
In reply to Lou's apology-moardanthrei, posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2014, at 11:34:24
> Friends,
> My apology for posting more than 3 consecutive posts.
> LouI'm sure that it was an honest oversight. I know that it is difficult for you to follow this rule, and I appreciate your vigilance in adhering to it.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 1, 2014, at 15:08:40
In reply to Re: Lou's apology-moardanthrei » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 1, 2014, at 14:59:23
> > Friends,
> > My apology for posting more than 3 consecutive posts.
> > Lou
>
> I'm sure that it was an honest oversight. I know that it is difficult for you to follow this rule, and I appreciate your vigilance in adhering to it.
>
> Thanks.Now that I have seen the whole thread, it occurs to me that it is counterproductive to have a 3-post rule when the time between posts is so lengthy. Perhaps we could revise the rule to set a limit of 3 consecutive posts per day. I still believe that a limit is absolutely necessary if we are to prevent a virtual denial of service or graffiti.
- Scott
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.