![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on June 13, 2013, at 21:19:28
In reply to For Lou: forcing, lackeys, what is 'outstanding'?, posted by 10derheart on June 13, 2013, at 18:25:04
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2013, at 21:19:28
In reply to For Lou: forcing, lackeys, what is 'outstanding'?, posted by 10derheart on June 13, 2013, at 18:25:04
> >>...there are years of outstanding requests/notifications from me to Mr Hsiung and his deputy now and his former deputies
>
> >>it is easy for others here to persuade you because you lack the facts that I could post. Yet today, I will have to wait for someone greater than me to have the power to force Mr Hsiung and his lackeys to respond to my years of outstanding requests/notifications.
>
> Force? Could you describe what you imagine that would look like, Lou? Is there some person or entity "greater than [you]" that can "force" the administrator of an online message board or others who volunteer[ed] to assist him to do or not do anything? I am eager to know more about this.
> =======================================
>
> (Merriam-Webster)
> Definition of LACKEY
> 1a : footman 2, servant
> b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
> 2: a servile follower : toady
>
> Toady - one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors : sycophant
>
> Lol...you can't mean "toady." The last thing I ever did or can remember any deputy doing, was to flatter Dr. Bob or be a sycophant. What favors were to be gained? Borderline abuse, frustration, exasperation, disgust, bewilderment? Ahh...the rewards of deputy relations with disgruntled posters and Dr. Bob.
>
> Lou, could you clarify which meaning of lackey (including toady)you meant in your post? I may request an apology, but I'm unsure what you meant. I don't mind menial tasks or errands one bit - it is an honor to serve others. But servile follower or toady...seem to hold a different connotation.
>
> I have another question, Lou. In your HHHHH opinion, is a request/notification which is not replied to with the answer that you prefer, or are looking for, or that you think is correct, considered "outstanding?" I have been trying to figure out what you mean by "years of outstanding requests" for a long, long time.
>
> Take care, Lou.
>
> gardenergirl,
I apologise for any aspect of my use of the word, lackey, that you may have different thinking about the word that I do. I did not use it a "toady", and I have never heard of the word either until now.
My use of the word involved, simply, the aspect of a deputy here doing the tasks of the administration of the board such as redirecting posts, clarifying things, posting to be civil or deleting a post as listed as the duties of the deputies in the FAQ. The deputy is a person that carries out the wishes of the one deputizing them. The deputy generally does not deviate from the wishes of the superior and carries out tasks with authorization from the superior. I think that a deputy can not do what they want to do in their own mind, but carry out the wishes of the superior and if they object to what the superior wants done,they usually resign.
My apologies if the word was not the best word.
Lou
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2013, at 0:36:33
In reply to For Lou: forcing, lackeys, what is 'outstanding'?, posted by 10derheart on June 13, 2013, at 21:19:27
The term "lackey" as it is currently used is pejorative and derogatory. I'm glad Lou Pilder chose to suggest that it might not have been the best word, although he does state that he has a "different thinking" about the word.
> I have another question, Lou. In your HHHHH opinion, is a request/notification which is not replied to with the answer that you prefer, or are looking for, or that you think is correct, considered "outstanding?" I have been trying to figure out what you mean by "years of outstanding requests" for a long, long time.
I recall a conversation on the Administration board that made it clear that the lack of a reply to a notification could be interpreted as indicating that no action will be taken in response to that notification. When moderation is present, it would be impossible to determine which notifications have been reviewed and which have not. Therefore, if a notification is reviewed without response, it is no longer outstanding. In the absence of moderation, a lack of response cannot be interpreted at all.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 7:07:10
In reply to Lou's reply-deputy » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2013, at 21:19:28
> > >>...there are years of outstanding requests/notifications from me to Mr Hsiung and his deputy now and his former deputies
> >
> > >>it is easy for others here to persuade you because you lack the facts that I could post. Yet today, I will have to wait for someone greater than me to have the power to force Mr Hsiung and his lackeys to respond to my years of outstanding requests/notifications.
> >
> > Force? Could you describe what you imagine that would look like, Lou? Is there some person or entity "greater than [you]" that can "force" the administrator of an online message board or others who volunteer[ed] to assist him to do or not do anything? I am eager to know more about this.
> > =======================================
> >
> > (Merriam-Webster)
> > Definition of LACKEY
> > 1a : footman 2, servant
> > b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
> > 2: a servile follower : toady
> >
> > Toady - one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors : sycophant
> >
> > Lol...you can't mean "toady." The last thing I ever did or can remember any deputy doing, was to flatter Dr. Bob or be a sycophant. What favors were to be gained? Borderline abuse, frustration, exasperation, disgust, bewilderment? Ahh...the rewards of deputy relations with disgruntled posters and Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Lou, could you clarify which meaning of lackey (including toady)you meant in your post? I may request an apology, but I'm unsure what you meant. I don't mind menial tasks or errands one bit - it is an honor to serve others. But servile follower or toady...seem to hold a different connotation.
> >
> > I have another question, Lou. In your HHHHH opinion, is a request/notification which is not replied to with the answer that you prefer, or are looking for, or that you think is correct, considered "outstanding?" I have been trying to figure out what you mean by "years of outstanding requests" for a long, long time.
> >
> > Take care, Lou.
> >
> > gardenergirl,
> I apologise for any aspect of my use of the word, lackey, that you may have different thinking about the word that I do. I did not use it a "toady", and I have never heard of the word either until now.
> My use of the word involved, simply, the aspect of a deputy here doing the tasks of the administration of the board such as redirecting posts, clarifying things, posting to be civil or deleting a post as listed as the duties of the deputies in the FAQ. The deputy is a person that carries out the wishes of the one deputizing them. The deputy generally does not deviate from the wishes of the superior and carries out tasks with authorization from the superior. I think that a deputy can not do what they want to do in their own mind, but carry out the wishes of the superior and if they object to what the superior wants done,they usually resign.
> My apologies if the word was not the best word.
> Lou
>
> 10,
You wrote,[...I have been trying to figure out..years of outstanding requests...].
The TOS here is that when a notification is sent, either the administration will address the statement in question on the board OR reply directly to the one notifying. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
If neither has been done, then the notification remains outstanding until one or the other happens.
So in my notifications that I post reminders here to, that means that neither one of what the administration says that they will do has been done. For the TOS here also says that reminders can be posted for the administration to act. And then reminders to the reminders can also be posted.
In the situation here where there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me to the administration, that shows
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 7:38:13
In reply to Lou's reply-TOS, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 7:07:10
> > > >>...there are years of outstanding requests/notifications from me to Mr Hsiung and his deputy now and his former deputies
> > >
> > > >>it is easy for others here to persuade you because you lack the facts that I could post. Yet today, I will have to wait for someone greater than me to have the power to force Mr Hsiung and his lackeys to respond to my years of outstanding requests/notifications.
> > >
> > > Force? Could you describe what you imagine that would look like, Lou? Is there some person or entity "greater than [you]" that can "force" the administrator of an online message board or others who volunteer[ed] to assist him to do or not do anything? I am eager to know more about this.
> > > =======================================
> > >
> > > (Merriam-Webster)
> > > Definition of LACKEY
> > > 1a : footman 2, servant
> > > b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
> > > 2: a servile follower : toady
> > >
> > > Toady - one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors : sycophant
> > >
> > > Lol...you can't mean "toady." The last thing I ever did or can remember any deputy doing, was to flatter Dr. Bob or be a sycophant. What favors were to be gained? Borderline abuse, frustration, exasperation, disgust, bewilderment? Ahh...the rewards of deputy relations with disgruntled posters and Dr. Bob.
> > >
> > > Lou, could you clarify which meaning of lackey (including toady)you meant in your post? I may request an apology, but I'm unsure what you meant. I don't mind menial tasks or errands one bit - it is an honor to serve others. But servile follower or toady...seem to hold a different connotation.
> > >
> > > I have another question, Lou. In your HHHHH opinion, is a request/notification which is not replied to with the answer that you prefer, or are looking for, or that you think is correct, considered "outstanding?" I have been trying to figure out what you mean by "years of outstanding requests" for a long, long time.
> > >
> > > Take care, Lou.
> > >
> > > gardenergirl,
> > I apologise for any aspect of my use of the word, lackey, that you may have different thinking about the word that I do. I did not use it a "toady", and I have never heard of the word either until now.
> > My use of the word involved, simply, the aspect of a deputy here doing the tasks of the administration of the board such as redirecting posts, clarifying things, posting to be civil or deleting a post as listed as the duties of the deputies in the FAQ. The deputy is a person that carries out the wishes of the one deputizing them. The deputy generally does not deviate from the wishes of the superior and carries out tasks with authorization from the superior. I think that a deputy can not do what they want to do in their own mind, but carry out the wishes of the superior and if they object to what the superior wants done,they usually resign.
> > My apologies if the word was not the best word.
> > Lou
> >
> > 10,
> You wrote,[...I have been trying to figure out..years of outstanding requests...].
> The TOS here is that when a notification is sent, either the administration will address the statement in question on the board OR reply directly to the one notifying. I took Mr Hsiung at his word.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> If neither has been done, then the notification remains outstanding until one or the other happens.
> So in my notifications that I post reminders here to, that means that neither one of what the administration says that they will do has been done. For the TOS here also says that reminders can be posted for the administration to act. And then reminders to the reminders can also be posted.
> In the situation here where there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me to the administration, that showsa pattern. For there is an {expectation} to the members that the administration will follow their own policy. And other members are assured that their notification will be acted on by the administration.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/698760.html
It is the assurance posted by the deputy here that leads members to think that the administration will honor their own terms of service. So this becomes what is known as a {redacted by respondent} tool of the administration to control the content. For if members are led to believe that notifications will be acted on, then when a statement is seen without sanction by the administration, members could think that what is in question is not only civil, but supportive, for Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait and support takes precedence.
In the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings that are allowed to stand, Jews could be at risk of being victims of anti-Semitic violence by the nature hat someone could read a statement that is allowed to stand that purports hatred toward the Jews and the reader could think that it is supportive by the administration if allowed to stand. I am prohibited by Mr Hsiung to post here the historical parallels to this. Then hate could be harbored by the reader and the hate could be acted out by either the reader killing themselves or others or both. Then the question becomes that if the anti-Semitic statement was sanctioned, would the reader that took it a supportive have acted out hatred toward their selves or others? Mr Hsiung does not disagree with me that this could happen here as he has posted here. He states that {it may be good} for others to see that he does not have to act on my requests. My friends, do you not see that
Posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2013, at 10:07:12
In reply to Re: For Lou: forcing, lackeys, what is 'outstanding'? » 10derheart, posted by SLS on June 14, 2013, at 0:36:33
I recall that also. It was made quite clear. No response no action. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on June 14, 2013, at 15:50:28
In reply to Lou's reply-TOS-will act, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 7:38:13
Perhaps you should post a question addressed to the moderator (Dr. Bob) to clarify the policy regarding notifications. There is nothing to debate in the absence of this information. If the policy has evolved over time, I think it would be helpful for the doctor to offer an explanation of his current thoughts on this issue.
How many times a day do you submit notifications?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 16:20:32
In reply to Notification policy » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on June 14, 2013, at 15:50:28
> Perhaps you should post a question addressed to the moderator (Dr. Bob) to clarify the policy regarding notifications. There is nothing to debate in the absence of this information. If the policy has evolved over time, I think it would be helpful for the doctor to offer an explanation of his current thoughts on this issue.
>
> How many times a day do you submit notifications?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
The notification policy is what it is. I do not know of any change in the policy and if you have a link for some change, please post it and then I could have theopportunity to respondaccordingly.
Now Mr Hsiung does state why he leaves my notifications/requests outstanding. He also agrees that ate could lead to murder, and I think that there is the potential for myself to be a victim of anti-Semitic violence due to that there are numerous anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand, which I think could be thought by some to be supportive due to that Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait and that support takes precedence and that one match could start a forest fire. Here is the link to Mr Hsiung stating about hate could cause one to commit murder and that he states that it might be good for some to see that my requests /notifications do not have to be responded to. That is a stated reason, so imhho, there is the fact that the notification system has not changed at all from that either the statement will be addressed on the board or the notifyer will be contacted directly. If neither of those were done to my notifications/requests, I post a reminder. There is also the option of reminding via email
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044025.html
Posted by Toph on June 14, 2013, at 17:25:36
In reply to Lou's reply-gudphoar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 16:20:32
It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
Posted by 10derheart on June 14, 2013, at 18:38:17
In reply to Lou's reply-deputy » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on June 13, 2013, at 21:19:28
Thank you, Lou. I take no offense. It is just a word and not such a bad one.
My best friend of over 25 years taught me the word *toady* during a phone call a few years back. It cracked me up so much I have never forgotten it. She was rolling along, telling me a detailed story of a woman she was trying to patiently work with in a youth group, but whom she felt just did everything to please the person running the whole program and to get constant praise, instead of focusing on the kids....and she says, "oh, she's just such a toady!"
"A what?"
"A toady."
"What the heck is a toady? And why do you know that word?!"She said she remembered reading it in a book and picked it up there... guess you had to be there but we both love books, writing, reading....and usually don't stump each other with unknown vocabulary.
Your description of deputy duties is quite correct, for the most part.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on June 14, 2013, at 20:12:28
In reply to Re: lackeys and toadys...or..toadies?? » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on June 14, 2013, at 18:38:17
I've always wanted to be a "minion". It sounds so devious.
:-)
"Dr Bobs minions"
AwesomeI'm so not a minion. I'm very boring actually, in some respects. I feel like I work a lot. I wonder what minions get as an average annual salary.
Posted by 10derheart on June 14, 2013, at 22:17:21
In reply to Minions, posted by sleepygirl2 on June 14, 2013, at 20:12:28
Oh, that word has been popular here. 'Minions' actually, in my memory, was by far one of the kindest things I was called as a deputy. Some of the things through B-mail I can't/won't post, and others were right on the boards but a bit more...err...colorful than minions.
There were whole discussions sometimes....like 2010 when I think, civility buddies came up. Ancient history, really. Posters got impassioned, deputies included. It wasn't always fun, but always interesting.
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl?post=/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969670.htmlMinions didn't come with a sense of humor and lightness so much though, like you are doing. Take one of the more recent, although it was 2 years back...oh ron, always good for his ever-so-honest posts.... yup.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/980223.html
Goes with the territory, I quickly learned, although I never got "used" to it :-)
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2013, at 1:26:23
In reply to Lou's reply-gudphoar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 14, 2013, at 16:20:32
> The notification policy is what it is.
It is what the moderator says it is. If his current thoughts, actions, protocols, and philosophies deviate from those written years ago in the old TOS and FAQ, you might not be aware of the changes he has made in his policies.
Since I am not completely sure of what your informational needs are regarding posting policies, I recommend that you ask the moderator concisely and directly as soon as possible what they are.
Example:
"Dr. Bob, why are my notifications not being answered?"
By the way, notifications made by me have remained unanswered, too. I am not sure why.
Oh, well.
It is what it is.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:03:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-gudphoar » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on June 14, 2013, at 17:25:36
> It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
>
> Toph,
You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:06:40
In reply to Lou's reply-may be good » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:03:48
> > It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
> >
> > Toph,
> You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
> I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
> Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
> Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
> This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> correction:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:27:40
In reply to Policies » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on June 15, 2013, at 1:26:23
> > The notification policy is what it is.
>
> It is what the moderator says it is. If his current thoughts, actions, protocols, and philosophies deviate from those written years ago in the old TOS and FAQ, you might not be aware of the changes he has made in his policies.
>
> Since I am not completely sure of what your informational needs are regarding posting policies, I recommend that you ask the moderator concisely and directly as soon as possible what they are.
>
> Example:
>
> "Dr. Bob, why are my notifications not being answered?"
>
> By the way, notifications made by me have remained unanswered, too. I am not sure why.
>
> Oh, well.
>
> It is what it is.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...ask the moderator...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727348.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 17:01:09
In reply to Lou's reply-may be good » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:03:48
> > It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
> >
> > Toph,
> You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
> I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
> Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
> Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
> This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> Toph,
Now here is a post that Mr Hsiung is allotwing to stand. By his own word, people can think that it is civil and supportive because it is not sanctioned and support takes precedence. The statement says that the ONLY way someone will miss out on Eternal Life and forgiveness from God is to reject Jesus, and the poster says that the bible says this. (does it?)
The statement says that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children that had atrocities committed against them and then murdered, and their ashes heaped to be cast in the wind, can not have forgiveness from God or Eternal Life because they were Jews that do reject the claim of many Christiandom sects as posted here being allowed to stand. And much more, the statement has the potential to mean that those murderers could have Eternal Life and God's forgiveness by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, I guess right before they killed themselves or were hung.
Now in my request to Mr Hsiung, I ask if he could state if the statement in question is supportive or not. My request is outstanding. Are you one of the people that Mr Hsiung states may think it is good to see that he does not have to respond to my request here? It could go a long way to stopping what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings here, if my request was responded to. For then, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, an offer protection to the Jews that could be victims of anti-Semitic hatred that could come from this site.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/949618.html
Posted by Willful on June 15, 2013, at 18:04:50
In reply to Lou's reply-gudphoardhakamunitee? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 17:01:09
Lou, Bob is clearly saying that it may be good for the community to see that posts from you do not have to be responded to.
Clearly this is an appropriate observation. Is it necessary for every post by you to be responded to, on this board, by every member of the community?
If not, then clearly it may be good for those people who choose not to respond to see that posts from you do not NEED to be responded to.
This is supportive of their sense that they do not want to respond.
What is wrong with that?
If you do not insist that is it necessary for everyone to respond, then it would seem you would agree with Bob's observation.
Posted by Willful on June 15, 2013, at 18:05:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-gudphoardhakamunitee?, posted by Willful on June 15, 2013, at 18:04:50
Posted by sleepygirl2 on June 15, 2013, at 19:19:18
In reply to Re: Minions » sleepygirl2, posted by 10derheart on June 14, 2013, at 22:17:21
Silliness, I say.
And that Ron, quite the charmer, and so convinced of himself.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 19:48:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-gudphoardhakamunitee?, posted by Willful on June 15, 2013, at 18:04:50
> Lou, Bob is clearly saying that it may be good for the community to see that posts from you do not have to be responded to.
>
> Clearly this is an appropriate observation. Is it necessary for every post by you to be responded to, on this board, by every member of the community?
>
> If not, then clearly it may be good for those people who choose not to respond to see that posts from you do not NEED to be responded to.
>
> This is supportive of their sense that they do not want to respond.
>
> What is wrong with that?
>
> If you do not insist that is it necessary for everyone to respond, then it would seem you would agree with Bob's observation.W,
You wrote,[...(Mr Hsiung) is..saying it may be good for the community to see that posts from you do not have to be responded to...].
The grammatical structure of what is in discussion is the outstanding requests/notifications. These are to Mr Hsiung and not to the members, for notifications go to Mr Hsiung and his deputies. The subject person is me and the subject is that the outstanding notifications/requests concerning statements here that are allowed to stand that could arouse antisemitic feelings could lead to Jews becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence. And also Islamic people that have their faith insulted and those of other faiths and those with no religious affiliation. If my requests to Mr Hsiung were responded to, then IMHHO hatred toward the Jews and others that could come from here could be stopped. I think that would be good for this community and those that think that it will be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding can post here why they think that and then I could have the opportunity to respond to them.
There is no rule that requires anyone to respond to other's posts here. And many here do respond to my posts, so I have not made a request to Mr Hsiung to require him to make others respond to my posts. It is plainly visible that the subject is the outstanding requests/notifications from me to Mr Hsiung as Toph writes here. Are you one of the sub set of people here that thinks it is good to see that my requests/notifications to Mr Hsiung are not responded to?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20130109/msgs/1045309.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 19:50:50
In reply to Lou's reply- » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 19:48:16
> > Lou, Bob is clearly saying that it may be good for the community to see that posts from you do not have to be responded to.
> >
> > Clearly this is an appropriate observation. Is it necessary for every post by you to be responded to, on this board, by every member of the community?
> >
> > If not, then clearly it may be good for those people who choose not to respond to see that posts from you do not NEED to be responded to.
> >
> > This is supportive of their sense that they do not want to respond.
> >
> > What is wrong with that?
> >
> > If you do not insist that is it necessary for everyone to respond, then it would seem you would agree with Bob's observation.
>
> W,
> You wrote,[...(Mr Hsiung) is..saying it may be good for the community to see that posts from you do not have to be responded to...].
> The grammatical structure of what is in discussion is the outstanding requests/notifications. These are to Mr Hsiung and not to the members, for notifications go to Mr Hsiung and his deputies. The subject person is me and the subject is that the outstanding notifications/requests concerning statements here that are allowed to stand that could arouse antisemitic feelings could lead to Jews becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence. And also Islamic people that have their faith insulted and those of other faiths and those with no religious affiliation. If my requests to Mr Hsiung were responded to, then IMHHO hatred toward the Jews and others that could come from here could be stopped. I think that would be good for this community and those that think that it will be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding can post here why they think that and then I could have the opportunity to respond to them.
> There is no rule that requires anyone to respond to other's posts here. And many here do respond to my posts, so I have not made a request to Mr Hsiung to require him to make others respond to my posts. It is plainly visible that the subject is the outstanding requests/notifications from me to Mr Hsiung as Toph writes here. Are you one of the sub set of people here that thinks it is good to see that my requests/notifications to Mr Hsiung are not responded to?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20130109/msgs/1045309.htmlcorrection:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1045309.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 20:29:23
In reply to Lou's reply-may be good » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 16:03:48
> > It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
> >
> > Toph,
> You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
> I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
> Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
> Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
> This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> Toph,
You wrote,[...you and (Mr Hsiung ) may benefit from unresponded notifications...].
Oh yeah? What benefit is there for hate to be allowed to stand here? What benefit is there to MrHsiung? There is no benefit to me, my friend. Is there benefit to you? If so, what is it?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1034151.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 21:09:24
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph--may benefit, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 20:29:23
> > > It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
> > >
> > > Toph,
> > You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
> > I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
> > Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
> > Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
> > This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> >
> > Toph,
> You wrote,[...you and (Mr Hsiung ) may benefit from unresponded notifications...].
> Oh yeah? What benefit is there for hate to be allowed to stand here? What benefit is there to MrHsiung? There is no benefit to me, my friend. Is there benefit to you? If so, what is it?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1034151.html
>
> Toph,
My apology. In reviewing the posts here,I just saw that I had asked you previously if you are in the sub set of people that see that it is good for my notification/requests to not be responded to.
Lou
Posted by willful on June 16, 2013, at 2:42:06
In reply to Lou's reply- » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 19:48:16
well lou I gave you my @@@ interpretation @@@. of dr bob s point. sometimes you have to read " between the lines.' Have you heard this phrase?
Not everything can be seen on the ' surface'-- in fact most of understanding what people mean is not reading the surface, the visible-- it comes from understanding the context, it needs to be inferred.
perhaps you need to consider this in your attempt to understand Bob' point in the passage you keep quoting. Maybe if you understood what he really meant-- by looking at the context--- ie the discussion on the board at the time--you would realize that you are missing his point.
by the way. you seem also not to understand that according to several people's memory of the rules, all your posts have been dealt with--- and you don't have any outstanding requests at all. What about that ? isn't it possible that your opinion is incorrect? and that you should not expect any further action on past requests, notifications.
I would only say to you : please do not reiterate points that you have already made as they are not responses to this post. please respond to the points I have made
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.