![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 78 to 102 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 10:56:33
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Crazy_Charlie, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 10:52:54
> I saw his attack towards this woman as very harsh and cruel
Dr. Bob - CC was explaining his reaction. He wasn't saying that he *still thinks* it is harsh and cruel, he was saying that that was why he was harsh himself at first. The same paragraph says he can see that his words were too strong and tthat he didn't mean to offend.
It was an explanation of what he was thinking when he first posted judgemental things. Not trying to justify why he can still be uncivil.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 14:34:11
In reply to Re: blocked - is this fair? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 10:56:33
> > I saw his attack towards this woman as very harsh and cruel
>
> CC was explaining his reaction.I'm sorry if I seem harsh, too, but I'd like explanations also to be civil, for example, something like:
> > I didn't understand his reaction towards this woman considering the state she was in when she wrote that letter, and I tried to explain that to him so he would understand why.
Bob
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:27:59
In reply to Re: blocked - is this fair?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 14:34:11
> > > I saw his attack towards this woman as very harsh and cruel
> >
> > CC was explaining his reaction.
>
> I'm sorry if I seem harsh, too, but I'd like explanations also to be civil, for example, something like:
>
> > > I didn't understand his reaction towards this woman considering the state she was in when she wrote that letter, and I tried to explain that to him so he would understand why.
>
> Bob
Isn't this just hacking on details on peoples way of expressing themselves? If "I saw his attack towards this woman as very harsh and cruel" (which is past tense and do not imply that the person still think so)and "I didn't understand his reaction towards this woman considering the state she was in when she wrote that letter, and I tried to explain that to him so he would understand why" (which is a very elaborate way of saying almost the same thing, just sifting out negative sounding words like harsh and cruel).Are you sayng that being civil means excluding words with negative content?
And wouldn't being so spesific in how you want people to phrase themselves lead to excluding people that is not so good in expressing themselves and finding the right words?
If you really want to be strict, then if "I" said "I just wanted to explain this to him so he would understand why" could imply that "I" think the person is stupid since he doesn't understand (he doesn't understand this so he must be stuoid and I must make sure he understand it because I am smarter than him and it's my duty to teach him blablabla)
Isn't the matter of civilness being pulled a bit too far soon?
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:36:35
In reply to Re: blocked - is this fair?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 14:34:11
Isn't it also wise to consider that the discussion about persons that are blocked; what they said, what they meant, etc etc still continues after the person is blocked so the person it is all about CANNOT comment on it themselves?
Do you really think that is fair? To openly discuss someones posts; the intention with them, the meaning with them, what was actually written and what that meant, what should have been written instead... when this someone has lost the right to speak? So they can read what is said, but not be able to comment on it or correct anything if it is wrong? Do you think that is an ethical thing on a board like this, with many people with different mental problems?
I'm just wondering, I see this eagerness in it becoming a perfect board where no one can hurt each other, but I also see how this can turn out wrong for many people and make it a bad board rather than a good one.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 17:54:26
In reply to Re: blocked - is this fair?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 14:34:11
Yes, but I read it that he/she was recognizing that he/she was being judgemental at first. Using those words just emphasizes that he realizes he was wrong.
I didn't read it as a judgement on anyone else but himself.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 19:02:55
In reply to Re: blocked - is this fair? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 17:54:26
> Yes, but I read it that he/she was recognizing that he/she was being judgemental at first. Using those words just emphasizes that he realizes he was wrong.
>
> I didn't read it as a judgement on anyone else but himself.
You make a good point there. Sometimes I get the idea that for some subjects it is enough if it is potentially possible to be hurt by the content (read: words), despite that both the grammar and meaning says something else. When form start being more important than meaning in a conversation, I find it difficult to actually extract meaning sometimes.I also sometimes wonder whether a board that request people to be able to be so creative in how they express themselves is a good place for people who for example have problems with expressing themselves of some reason (some depressives can have problems expressing themselves because depression can affect cognition, people who has never had the chance of getting a good education might have problems expressing themselves because they might not be used to "play with words" like this, people that have a lot lower than average intelligence might of understandable causes have problems expressing themselves, and some people are simply not good with words) and whether it then should be open for everybody to join?
Posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 19:58:03
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 16, 2004, at 15:35:06
> Don't tell me, I was being anti semetic by being upset with my husband because my husband has a jewish great aunt?!!!!!!!
>
> Thanks Lou, I was so close to breaking point, and you have helped me just HUGELY today. (that was sarcasm by the way)
>
> Cheers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This entire past situation alarms me.
Here, we have a poster using sarcasm to lash out at another person, bringing out a false charge of claiming he objected to her post due to anti-Semitism.
Lou objected to Nikki's mentioning of wanting to commit suicide. THAT was the reason for his objection to the post.
It was assumed, by Nikki and others, that his objection must be due to anti-Semitism, and so this is the lash-out against Lou.
It was allowed to remain.
Then, this, even worse post, in which Lou is accused of being evil (no matter how carefully worded), also which was not sanctioned: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404068.html
Finally, we get this, which is supposed to be Dr. Bob's sanction of Nikki, but which only reminds her to not respond to someone who's requested "no posting to me".
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404346.html
Why is it permissable to accuse anyone of being evil? During the Nazi Holocaust, Jews were accused of being inferior, sub-human, dangerous, and yes, evil, in a huge propaganda campaign that turned an entire nation against one race of people.
Can any of us imagine what that must have been like? To be turned on by those in power, to be looked at suspiciously, to be demonized by those who could inflict harm? To be at the mercy of frenzied mobs who had the back-up of the official government? To watch helplessly while those you love are abused, beaten, tortured, brutalized and then killed?
And can we be sensitive to those who either lost family to that madness, or who have lived under the fear that such a thing could happen again (particularly when there are those who claim that it never happened!)?
Can we perhaps try to understand how it might feel to hear those words again, "You are evil", which stirs up all manner of fear, and concern that they are, once again, being targetted with accusations and hatred?
If we do and say nothing, then we are like those who tried to be "uninvolved", and turned a blind eye to what was going on. And yet history has shown that the ones who were silent were guilty of not speaking out, not defending those who were being wrongly attacked.
While we do not need to attack people, we must point out when someone's actions are harmful.
And when we do not, we set a precedent for such things to be condoned, repeated, and perpetuated.
Put yourselves in Lou's shoes -- and ask yourself how you would feel, if these things were said about you, and your people.
If we do not stand up for those who are victimized, who will stand up for us...?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 1:08:10
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr.Hsiung, posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 19:58:03
> Here, we have a poster using sarcasm
> and so this is the lash-out against Lou.
> Then, this, even worse post,Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or jump to conclusions about others, and please follow site guidelines regarding reporting posts you find objectionable. Please use the Notification system to do that instead of posting about them here.
> While we do not need to attack people, we must point out when someone's actions are harmful.
While it is, of course, perfectly fine to feel you must point certain things out, here on Babble Dr. Bob asks we do it within the current civility guidelines. Even when we are feeling really strongly about something, and even when we are feeling strongly that Dr. Bob made mistakes in the past, etc. The idea being, two wrongs don't make a right...
It may also help to remember when reading older threads, that the civility guidelines have changed re: pointing out uncivil posts publicly, asking others not to post to you publicly, etc.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
Respectfully,
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2008, at 20:13:53
In reply to Please be civil/follow site guidelines » Dena, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 1:08:10
> > Here, we have a poster using sarcasm
> > and so this is the lash-out against Lou.
> > Then, this, even worse post,
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or jump to conclusions about others, and please follow site guidelines regarding reporting posts you find objectionable. Please use the Notification system to do that instead of posting about them here.
>
> > While we do not need to attack people, we must point out when someone's actions are harmful.
>
> While it is, of course, perfectly fine to feel you must point certain things out, here on Babble Dr. Bob asks we do it within the current civility guidelines. Even when we are feeling really strongly about something, and even when we are feeling strongly that Dr. Bob made mistakes in the past, etc. The idea being, two wrongs don't make a right...
>
> It may also help to remember when reading older threads, that the civility guidelines have changed re: pointing out uncivil posts publicly, asking others not to post to you publicly, etc.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> --10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. BobDeputy 10derHeart for Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to the policy to direct follow-ups here on the administration board to discuss rationales, rules, policy and such, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in your post here. If you could clarify the following concerning that you wrote,{...please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or jump to conclusions about others...}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.Who are the others that could feel accused or put down in what you cited as the basis for writing that? I see my name there and I do not feel accused or put down by what the poster wrote that you cited here.
B. Of the three things that you cited that the member posted, are all three of them statements that could cause the people that you identified in (A) above to feel accused or put down? If not, which are the one or ones that you are referring to or something else?
C.Could you post here your criteria (rationale) that you used as to what constitutes a statement that could or could not lead one to feel put down?
D. The generally accepted meaning of to {accuse} is to {blame}. If you agree with that definition of {accused}, and if there is something in the statments that you cited that accuses, could you post here who it accuses and what the person is being blamed {accused} for?
E. If there are statements in what you cited that {jump to a conclusion about others, could you post here who the others are and what conclusion was jumped to? This could also bring into what is meant by {jumped}, so if that is part of your reply to me, could you also list the criteria that you use to determine if a conclusion was jumped to or not?
Lou
Posted by Dena on August 11, 2008, at 23:19:54
In reply to Please be civil/follow site guidelines » Dena, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 1:08:10
So, now the policy here is that when one points out an injustice, a problem -- the one who points out the problem BECOMES the problem...?
Those are the same tactics used in mind-controlling groups. Having escaped from one, I'm quite familiar with that. Blame shifts from the offending party to the whistle-blower.
You see, when we adhere to the procedures and guidelines given, and yet there is no recourse, an injustice is allowed to not only remain, but to flourish. And yet when you who have authority continue to remind us to use the clearly inconsistent and therefore defunct procedures, the entire situation becomes ridiculous.
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always had ... in this case: Nuthin'.
I'm thinking the name here needs to be changed from Psycho Babble to Politico Babble.
I don't know why I expected more. I am rather disillusioned and disgusted with this forum.
Shalom, Dena
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Here, we have a poster using sarcasm
> > and so this is the lash-out against Lou.
> > Then, this, even worse post,
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or jump to conclusions about others, and please follow site guidelines regarding reporting posts you find objectionable. Please use the Notification system to do that instead of posting about them here.
>
> > While we do not need to attack people, we must point out when someone's actions are harmful.
>
> While it is, of course, perfectly fine to feel you must point certain things out, here on Babble Dr. Bob asks we do it within the current civility guidelines. Even when we are feeling really strongly about something, and even when we are feeling strongly that Dr. Bob made mistakes in the past, etc. The idea being, two wrongs don't make a right...
>
> It may also help to remember when reading older threads, that the civility guidelines have changed re: pointing out uncivil posts publicly, asking others not to post to you publicly, etc.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> --10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
>
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:36:31
In reply to Re: Please be civil/follow site guidelines » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Dena on August 11, 2008, at 23:19:54
> So, now the policy here is that when one points out an injustice, a problem -- the one who points out the problem BECOMES the problem...?
It depends on how one points out the problem, two wrongs don't make a right.
Bob
Posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 0:03:33
In reply to Re: pointing out a problem, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:36:31
> > So, now the policy here is that when one points out an injustice, a problem -- the one who points out the problem BECOMES the problem...?
>
> It depends on how one points out the problem, two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> Bob~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I pointed it out honestly, persistently, respectfuly, and with evidence.
Is there another way to do so?
So that I may learn, how would you have preferred that I point out a problem that had been ignored, despite repeated attempts to resolve it?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2008, at 1:21:57
In reply to Re: pointing out a problem » Dr. Bob, posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 0:03:33
> So that I may learn, how would you have preferred that I point out a problem that had been ignored, despite repeated attempts to resolve it?
If it involves another poster, either post a friendly reminder to them or notify me and the deputy administrators. The key to friendly reminders is being friendly, or at least civil. Please don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about them.
To notify me and the deputy administrators, use the "notify administrators" button below the post.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforce
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 1:28:02
In reply to Re: pointing out a problem, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2008, at 1:21:57
> > So that I may learn, how would you have preferred that I point out a problem that had been ignored, despite repeated attempts to resolve it?
>
> If it involves another poster, either post a friendly reminder to them or notify me and the deputy administrators. The key to friendly reminders is being friendly, or at least civil. Please don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about them.
>
> To notify me and the deputy administrators, use the "notify administrators" button below the post.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforce
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That was done, and ignored.
So, someone calling someone else evil is permitted.
But calling that accusation a "lashing out" is not permitted.
Do I have that right? Because that's certainly what I see happening here.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2008, at 1:53:02
In reply to Re: pointing out a problem, posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 1:28:02
> That was done, and ignored.
A notification was? Do you remember when you sent it? If so, let us know, and we can look for it. If not, could you send it again? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by kid47 on August 12, 2008, at 11:02:40
In reply to Re: pointing out a problem, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2008, at 1:53:02
> A notification was? Do you remember when you sent it? If so, let us know, and we can look for it. If not, could you send it again?<
>Bob<
This all too familiar response to certain requests for conflict resolution could lead someone to feel frustrated, ignored and insignificant. Sort of the same feeling I get when trying to resolve issues with my insurance provider, credit card company, etc. that rather than help me, just want me to go away. (or seem to enjoy keeping me on hold till the next ice age) What makes it particularly pointed is it comes from the administration of a mental health community, whos members might already be painfully accustomed to feeling frustrated, ignored and insignificant.
This does not mean I don't like you or think you are a bad person.
Peace Out
kid
Posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 13:11:56
In reply to Aw C'mon, posted by kid47 on August 12, 2008, at 11:02:40
> > A notification was? Do you remember when you sent it? If so, let us know, and we can look for it. If not, could you send it again?<
>
> >Bob<
>
> This all too familiar response to certain requests for conflict resolution could lead someone to feel frustrated, ignored and insignificant. Sort of the same feeling I get when trying to resolve issues with my insurance provider, credit card company, etc. that rather than help me, just want me to go away. (or seem to enjoy keeping me on hold till the next ice age) What makes it particularly pointed is it comes from the administration of a mental health community, whos members might already be painfully accustomed to feeling frustrated, ignored and insignificant.
>
> This does not mean I don't like you or think you are a bad person.
>
> Peace Out
> kid
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This had me both nodding in agreement, and laughing out loud...!
Yes, I recognize a brush-off when I get one.
This is absurd - I sent several notifications. This is YOUR system, and YOUR rules, not mine, not ours. We follow your rules, within your system, there's a breakdown on your end, which is not ackhowledged, and we're told to resubmit our complaints...?
Why, so they can be lost and/or ignored again?
I left here a long time ago, and only came back to help a friend -- this forum is run like a governmental beurocracy, and has all the efficiency and purpose of a perpetual treadmill.
Ugh.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Deputy Racer on August 12, 2008, at 23:47:18
In reply to Re: Aw C'mon, posted by Dena on August 12, 2008, at 13:11:56
> This is absurd - I sent several notifications. This is YOUR system, and YOUR rules, not mine, not ours. We follow your rules, within your system, there's a breakdown on your end, which is not ackhowledged, and we're told to resubmit our complaints...?
>
> Why, so they can be lost and/or ignored again?According the the archives of the notification system, you sent two notifications regarding the same poster and the same situation. Both were examined by administration, and found to be civil. Apparently you were not contacted with that result, which happens at times, most commonly when the poster sending the notification does not have BabbleMail activated. This was not the issue in your case. I offer my personal apology for the fact that no one notified you.
The guidelines require that the notification system be used to point out problems with posts. The idea behind it might be a good one -- it tends to reduce escalation between posters with dissenting views, for example, and it prevents posters from feeling hurt or unfairly accused when something they've written is pointed out as potentially uncivil.
I am very sorry that you feel as though your notifications have been ignored. As a deputy, I will only speak for myself, but I do try to keep up with notifications that come in. I have always been impressed by how conscientious both Dinah and 10derHeart are in their responses to notifications.
Please follow the site guidelines, even if you do not agree with all of them.
Respectfully,
Deputy Racer
Posted by Dena on August 13, 2008, at 0:20:39
In reply to Outstanding notifications » Dena, posted by Deputy Racer on August 12, 2008, at 23:47:18
Thank you for your considerate response, Racer. You're right, I wasn't notified. Thank you for acknowledging that. I accept your apology.
However, there are still numerous posts that are allowed to remain, both causing harm to others, and setting a bad precedent for futue posting.
I enumerated some of them in this post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/845229.html
All I got for that was a sanction for how I pointed out a problem. Appropriate action, to remove those posts, has not been taken.
It continues to look as though this site enforces the rules inconsistently.
I deplore the controlling rules here, for I believe it stifles conversation among adults, creating a punitive and juvenile atmosphere.
However -- if the rules are going to remain in place, they at least ought to be fairly implemented.
That's not happening.
It's been pointed out by many.
We're met with silence, and petty hand-slapping.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:58:08
In reply to Re: Outstanding notifications » Deputy Racer, posted by Dena on August 13, 2008, at 0:20:39
> Thank you for your considerate response, Racer. You're right, I wasn't notified. Thank you for acknowledging that. I accept your apology.
I apologize also. There is no mechanism in place to track whether notifications are responded to. We try to do it, but sometimes, especially if we ask Dr. Bob about something, or if a lot of notifications come in at once, things do get lost.
> I enumerated some of them in this post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/845229.html
The guidelines are very clear on this. Specific posts are not to be discussed on Administration. Problems with a specific poster are not to be discussed on Administration. That may not have been the rule when you were posting here before, but it is the rule now.
> However, there are still numerous posts that are allowed to remain, both causing harm to others, and setting a bad precedent for futue posting.
> It continues to look as though this site enforces the rules inconsistently.There is nothing inconsistent about this. Dr. Bob only removes posts by posters who are currently blocked and have reregistered under another posting name. Posts are not removed for incivility. There have been calls to change that policy, and it is appropriate to use the administrative board as a place to suggest that change of rule, so long as you don't refer to or link specific posts or posters.
> I deplore the controlling rules here, for I believe it stifles conversation among adults, creating a punitive and juvenile atmosphere.
>
> However -- if the rules are going to remain in place, they at least ought to be fairly implemented.
>
> That's not happening.
>
> It's been pointed out by many.
>
> We're met with silence, and petty hand-slapping.
>
> Shalom, DenaYou have been referring to posts that were made in 2004. There is nothing deputies can do about Dr. Bob's actions. Dr. Bob has been pretty consistent in not going back years to give PBC's. And PBC's have consistently been considered to cover all posts made prior to the PBC. So that if a poster was PBC'd for something after a given post, the PBC is deemed to cover that post as well.
You've been met with silence from deputies in part because there is nothing we can do about what you're reporting. I seriously doubt Dr. Bob will be inconsistent in his own Administrative policy of not reviewing administrative decisions made that far back, and I know he will not be inconsistent in his own policies to remove uncivil posts. Uncivil posts against any number of posters still remain in the archive, because Dr. Bob does not remove uncivil posts.
This site is run, and paid for, by Dr. Bob. I don't always agree with his decisions any more than anyone else does. But it's his site, and he has the ability to make the rules.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Zeba on August 30, 2008, at 0:46:35
In reply to Re: Outstanding notifications » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:58:08
Dinah, You said below in regard to concerns about past posts that may be uncivil or that that might be hurtful as a result of race, religion, and/or culture.
"This site is run, and paid for, by Dr. Bob. I don't always agree with his decisions any more than anyone else does. But it's his site, and he has the ability to make the rules"
It is true that it is his sight, but I would think that the University of Chicago would not want such posts with their name associated with them, even if they are from the past. They can be googled. Dr. Bob has at the end of the page the following:
"Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu"
So, I see this as problematic. I don't know if the University administration or faculty would approve even though "legally" they might not be liable. Still PR is important to a University Medical Center.
This is just my two cents on the topic.
ZEBA
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2008, at 7:19:41
In reply to Re: Outstanding notifications » Deputy Dinah, posted by Zeba on August 30, 2008, at 0:46:35
> Dinah, You said below in regard to concerns about past posts that may be uncivil or that that might be hurtful as a result of race, religion, and/or culture.
>
> "This site is run, and paid for, by Dr. Bob. I don't always agree with his decisions any more than anyone else does. But it's his site, and he has the ability to make the rules"
>
> It is true that it is his sight, but I would think that the University of Chicago would not want such posts with their name associated with them, even if they are from the past. They can be googled. Dr. Bob has at the end of the page the following:
>
> "Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu"
>
> So, I see this as problematic. I don't know if the University administration or faculty would approve even though "legally" they might not be liable. Still PR is important to a University Medical Center.
>
> This is just my two cents on the topic.
>
> ZEBAFriends,
It is written here,[...posts...from the past...].
A generally accepted meaning of {the past} is that something took place before the present. A generally accpted meaning of {present} is that what is present exists now.
My perspective as to if there are {past posts} or {present posts} here is that if they can be seen now, then they are in the present.
My perspective is that posts in the archives can be seen now in the present and are IMO posts that are part of the forum now.
I used a hypothetical example of a billboard in a city that had objectionable statements on it and that a member of the group that the statements could be thought to be directed at complained to the mayor to have those statements addressed by either removing the objectionable content or posting a disclaimer next to that content that indicated that those comments do not reflect the policy of the comunity standards in some way.
Hypothetically, one I guess could say that the billboard was from the past and constructed years ago so in that reasoning the objectionable content posted on the billboard would be left to stand. But then, hypothetically, the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that one can still see it even though the objectionable content was posted there in the past but can be seen now.
Then, hypothetically, the ones wanting the billboard's objectionable content to stand could say that it is not visible to all the community unless they go to that part of the city. Then the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that community members could be searching some part of the city looking for something other than the billboard and could pass the billboard on their way to another part of the city and then see the objectionable content on the billboard in the present, even though it was put there before the present.
There is a case here where I live where a sign was put up in a business that was defaming to a particular group of people. The owner was required to take it down as being discrimnatory under the policy of the community standard. The court did not take into consideration as to how long the sign was there or as to if other signs of the same nature would also have to be removed if the one in question was required to be removed but as to what the sign purported in relation to the community standards.
The posting policy here is defined in the TOS here. If one would like to post here an argument that could mean that posts of the nature in question are allowed to stand, or confirm an existing argument put forth here to allow posts of the nature in question to be allowed to stand, on any basis, I could then have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2008, at 7:58:57
In reply to Lou offers his perspective-ihtshpngnhow? » Zeba, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2008, at 7:19:41
> > Dinah, You said below in regard to concerns about past posts that may be uncivil or that that might be hurtful as a result of race, religion, and/or culture.
> >
> > "This site is run, and paid for, by Dr. Bob. I don't always agree with his decisions any more than anyone else does. But it's his site, and he has the ability to make the rules"
> >
> > It is true that it is his sight, but I would think that the University of Chicago would not want such posts with their name associated with them, even if they are from the past. They can be googled. Dr. Bob has at the end of the page the following:
> >
> > "Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu"
> >
> > So, I see this as problematic. I don't know if the University administration or faculty would approve even though "legally" they might not be liable. Still PR is important to a University Medical Center.
> >
> > This is just my two cents on the topic.
> >
> > ZEBA
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...posts...from the past...].
> A generally accepted meaning of {the past} is that something took place before the present. A generally accpted meaning of {present} is that what is present exists now.
> My perspective as to if there are {past posts} or {present posts} here is that if they can be seen now, then they are in the present.
> My perspective is that posts in the archives can be seen now in the present and are IMO posts that are part of the forum now.
> I used a hypothetical example of a billboard in a city that had objectionable statements on it and that a member of the group that the statements could be thought to be directed at complained to the mayor to have those statements addressed by either removing the objectionable content or posting a disclaimer next to that content that indicated that those comments do not reflect the policy of the comunity standards in some way.
> Hypothetically, one I guess could say that the billboard was from the past and constructed years ago so in that reasoning the objectionable content posted on the billboard would be left to stand. But then, hypothetically, the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that one can still see it even though the objectionable content was posted there in the past but can be seen now.
> Then, hypothetically, the ones wanting the billboard's objectionable content to stand could say that it is not visible to all the community unless they go to that part of the city. Then the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that community members could be searching some part of the city looking for something other than the billboard and could pass the billboard on their way to another part of the city and then see the objectionable content on the billboard in the present, even though it was put there before the present.
> There is a case here where I live where a sign was put up in a business that was defaming to a particular group of people. The owner was required to take it down as being discrimnatory under the policy of the community standard. The court did not take into consideration as to how long the sign was there or as to if other signs of the same nature would also have to be removed if the one in question was required to be removed but as to what the sign purported in relation to the community standards.
> The posting policy here is defined in the TOS here. If one would like to post here an argument that could mean that posts of the nature in question are allowed to stand, or confirm an existing argument put forth here to allow posts of the nature in question to be allowed to stand, on any basis, I could then have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> LouFriends,
In another aspect of this discussion, there was a case where I live where a man put a sign on his car and the city orderd him to take it down. The sign read,"for sale".
It was on his car window and the car was parked on the street. The city's argument was that the sign could cause harm to people by the nature that they would see it and be distracted and perhaps cause a wreck on the street. This went to the 6th distict of appeals.
The car owner argued in part that Realtors could have signs in yards and no one wrecked their car looking at their "for sale" signs. The city could not show evidence that the sign on the car window caused anyone to get hurt and the car owner won the case.
What my perspective about this in relation to this discussion here has IMO paralles that I would like to discuss this by email.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2011, at 12:35:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to pegasus-2B » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2004, at 15:39:35
> pegasus,
> You wrote, [...posts a URL that had antisemitic content..., that would be pretty bad...].
> Thank you for pointing that out. You see, by pointing that out, I believe that you see the crux of this in some way and could have the potential for you to appreciate some of the other aspects of this discussion in relation to my point of view and to my feelings.
> Best regards,
> Lou
>pegasus,
If this comes up in your email, could you post again here by looking into the threads here that contain outstanding requests from me to Mr. Hsiung?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2013, at 10:53:59
In reply to Aw C'mon, posted by kid47 on August 12, 2008, at 11:02:40
> > A notification was? Do you remember when you sent it? If so, let us know, and we can look for it. If not, could you send it again?<
>
> >Bob<
>
> This all too familiar response to certain requests for conflict resolution could lead someone to feel frustrated, ignored and insignificant. Sort of the same feeling I get when trying to resolve issues with my insurance provider, credit card company, etc. that rather than help me, just want me to go away. (or seem to enjoy keeping me on hold till the next ice age) What makes it particularly pointed is it comes from the administration of a mental health community, whos members might already be painfully accustomed to feeling frustrated, ignored and insignificant.
>
> This does not mean I don't like you or think you are a bad person.
>
> Peace Out
> kid
>
>
> Friends,
If you are interested in this aspect of my concerns here, I am requesting that you email me if you like.
Lou
>
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.