![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 571 to 595 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psychofht » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2014, at 16:11:41
> Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.htmlBut this one I'll count as a warning:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html> B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
I'd say I was following a different policy now.
--
> Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> Would you agree that:
> A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?I agree, that could happen.
> B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
I agree, that could happen.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2014, at 7:35:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
> > Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> > A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?
>
> Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> But this one I'll count as a warning:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
>
> I'd say I was following a different policy now.
>
> --
>
> > Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> > I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> > Would you agree that:
> > A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> > B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm following a new policy now...].
Would you agree:
A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?
Fill in:
And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
C. The new policy is:______________________
D. I changed the original policy because______________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2014, at 23:32:30
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pild discussion-arbcapdis » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2014, at 7:35:14
> Would you agree:
> A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
> B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?Do you think I'm out of compliance with part of the FAQ? Like there's the law, and the interpretation of the law, there's the FAQ, and policy.
> Fill in:
> And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
> C. The new policy is:______________________
> D. I changed the original policy because______________I feel I've explained that already. Can you find it in the archives?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 30, 2014, at 20:32:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
> > Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> > A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?
>
> Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> But this one I'll count as a warning:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
>
> I'd say I was following a different policy now.
>
> --
>
> > Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> > I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> > Would you agree that:
> > A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> > B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You agree that statements here that put me down or accuse me that are allowed to stand without you posting your tag-line to "Please be civil" to the statement in the thread where it appears, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate and that the longer those statements go without your tag-line to "Please be civil", that hostility could be encouraged toward me.
Yet today, the defamatory statement that I am a disturbed person is allowed to remain without your tag-line. You say that it is archived as to your reason to allow it to stand. I have the following concerns:
A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board, something like:
A. It is not in accordance with our rules here to defame another person. We do not ratify this slander but we will not tell the poster to be civil because we did not do it when it was posted and we have a secret reason for not doing it now;
or
B. We will not tell the person to be civil because we have a reason which is_______________
C. We regret not attending to this libel of Lou when the statement was posted, but we will allow it anyway.
D. We are allowing this obvious hatred to be posted against Lou here so that others could think that it is not against our rules and I give myself the option to not respond to his notifications to me so that others might not respond to him also and the post could go into the archives which allows us to leave it to be seen as supportive and that it will be good for this community as a whole.
E. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2014, at 7:06:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2014, at 23:32:30
> > Would you agree:
> > A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
> > B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?
>
> Do you think I'm out of compliance with part of the FAQ? Like there's the law, and the interpretation of the law, there's the FAQ, and policy.
>
> > Fill in:
> > And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
> > C. The new policy is:______________________
> > D. I changed the original policy because______________
>
> I feel I've explained that already. Can you find it in the archives?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here. What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire, and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you and the community to ignore my pleas to sanction defamation toward me and to ignore my pleas to sanction antisemitic statements the could lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down. If there is a change from your TOS, it is not visible in your TOS as stated in the FAQ.
Now if the FAQ is like a constitution, then your FAQ TOS is what establishes the rules here. If there is a "constitutional amendment", I would think that readers have the opportunity to know what that amendment is posted in a conspicuous manner so that readers know that you have changed your TOS here.
One way to do that would be to post on the top of each board an alert something like:
......NOTICE OF CHANGE TO THE TOS HERE.....
I have allowed defamation posted against Lou Pilder and I am allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand without posting a repudiation to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted, as in {No non-Christian will enter heaven. You can see this where I am allowing a member to call Lou a disturbed person and claim that since it is archived, I can not post my tag-line, "Please be civil" and you will not know if Lou sent a notification concerning the libel against him before I archived the libelous statement directed against Lou. This will be good for me and the community as a whole, although I will not tell you how it will be good for me and the community as a whole as of now. Those of you that have knowledge of European fascism, know of the tactic to arouse hatred toward the Jews called "the common good". That is analogous to "it will be good for the country, or community, as a whole". I am preventing Lou from posting links to historical documents concerning educating readers here about the tactics used by European fascism that was used to arouse hatred toward the Jews due to my prohibitions posted by me to him. If he was allowed to educate you in regards to how anti-Semitism is encouraged and developed in a community, then you could be informed of how it is done and by me prohibiting Lou from posting that educational material, readers could not be informed from him about what you could see if he was not prohibited by me. It is easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 1:45:54
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-itzpsoez » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2014, at 7:06:21
> A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
No one (except maybe you) notified me of it.
> B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
No, they're not public.
> C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
Which ones were the other ones, could you remind me?
> D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
Yes, that could happen.
> E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board
No, I see the FAQ as sufficient for other boards.
--
> I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here.
I don't believe I did.
> What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times
Yes.
> and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire,
That used to be my policy, but I don't think that's in the FAQ.
> and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications
Yes.
> but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you ... to ignore my pleas ...
I give myself the options of acting and not acting on all notifications.
--
> > C. The new policy is:______________________
I was recently reminded of a policy that I like:
> > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_carroll
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 7:16:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 1:45:54
> > A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
>
> No one (except maybe you) notified me of it.
>
> > B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
>
> No, they're not public.
>
> > C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
>
> Which ones were the other ones, could you remind me?
>
> > D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
>
> Yes, that could happen.
>
> > E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board
>
> No, I see the FAQ as sufficient for other boards.
>
> --
>
> > I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here.
>
> I don't believe I did.
>
> > What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times
>
> Yes.
>
> > and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire,
>
> That used to be my policy, but I don't think that's in the FAQ.
>
> > and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications
>
> Yes.
>
> > but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you ... to ignore my pleas ...
>
> I give myself the options of acting and not acting on all notifications.
>
> --
>
> > > C. The new policy is:______________________
>
> I was recently reminded of a policy that I like:
>
> > > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_carroll
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Let us examine the issues here in light of what can be seen. Here is one aspect of those:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
You state that you *will* act on notifications as that acting could either be that you notify the sender by email or such, or post in the thread involved. You then say that you will not act on *some* of my notifications because it will be good for you and the community as a whole to ignore my notification.
To be able to act on *some* of my notifications could lead a reasonable reader here to think that in order for you to discriminate between those that you will or will not act on, reading the notification would be required by you. For how else could you discriminate between those that you would act on and those that you would not act on?
But it is much more than that. For you state that I should consider any action on notifications to "come from all of us", which are the deputies of record and yourself. And also the deputies can act without your permission (if they wanted to). So a reasonable reader could conclude that if no action is taken on a notification from me, that a collusion between you and your deputies of record could have happened so that my notification is ignored by all of you acting in concert with each other to achieve the premeditated result that could happen from you and your deputies allowing my notification to go unacted upon. This could result in me being a victim of anti-Semitic violence or suffer extreme emotional distress from defamation and hostility being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record on the basis that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it could be considered to be not against your rules, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole (the *common good* used in European fascism) as your philosophy states here. You admit that all those things can happen as a result of you and your deputies of record being indifferent to my requests in the notifications from me. Readers could think that it is intentionally done by you and your deputies to allow the natural consequences to happen to me as a result of your ignoring my requests in those notifications that you ignore of mine. You agree that you have knowledge that by you ignoring my notifications, harm could come to me and Jews by the nature that anti-Semitic statements are allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as supportive on the basis that you will not post your tag-line to please be civil to the statement in the thread where it is originally posted. This is paramount in you allowing,{No no-Christian will enter heaven} to be seen as supportive in the thread where it is originally posted. Readers could see that the statement stands without you posting a repudiation linked to it where it is posted originally. Readers are told in your TOS that not until it is seen can one know it. I am pleading with you to this day to stop the potential harm that could come to Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians because the statement is analogous to {No Jew or no Islamic person will enter heaven} which insults those faiths to the nth degree. You can continue to allow the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole (the common good) to allow it to be seen as supportive to you. But I say to you, that as a psychiatrist you could be aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the condoning by you and notifications in order to foster anti-Semitic hate and hostility toward me in your community. You say that whatever you do for readers to trust you because what you do will be good for this community as a whole. With that type of reasoning, genocide could be seen as being good for a country as a whole. I will not let you use the Jewish people or me to be degraded by you and your deputies of record.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:17:26
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gudphoar » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 7:16:24
> I am pleading with you to this day to stop the potential harm that could come
I wish I had the power to keep potential harm from coming.
> You say that whatever you do for readers to trust you because what you do will be good for this community as a whole.
Actually, what I say is
> > please try ... to trust that I'm doing my best ... to do what *I think* will be good for this community as a whole
> I will not let you use the Jewish people or me to be degraded by you
I admire your tenacity and your dedication to protecting your people.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2014, at 6:15:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:17:26
> > I am pleading with you to this day to stop the potential harm that could come
>
> I wish I had the power to keep potential harm from coming.
>
> > You say that whatever you do for readers to trust you because what you do will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> Actually, what I say is
>
> > > please try ... to trust that I'm doing my best ... to do what *I think* will be good for this community as a whole
>
> > I will not let you use the Jewish people or me to be degraded by you
>
> I admire your tenacity and your dedication to protecting your people.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I wish I had the power to keep potential harm from coming...]
Potential harm can come from readers seeing anti-Semitic statements standing without your tag-line to please be civil linked to those statements in the thread where they are originally posted. By the omission of your tag-line, readers could then think that the hatred posted toward the Jews is not against your rules. Then coupled with that, the statements that decrease the regard and confidence and respect in which am held that could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions of me are also allowed to stand without your tag-line to please be civil linked to the statement in the thread where they are originally posted.
The fact that you say that you will not respond to some of my notifications but will respond to others, could be seen by a subset of readers that understand how fascist anti-Semitism is created in a community, to be anti-Jewish which could create a climate of antisenitic hate here by creating a community of acceptance for hatred of the Jews to be seen as civil by you.
You say that you would want to keep potential harm from coming? Here is how you could start.
A. Go to your archives of notifications and treat my outstanding notifications in the same manner as others here in the order of the most recent ones from me. This could show readers that think that you are abusing your power against Jews, that you are now going to treat my notifications equally as the other members here, now that you are not using the abuse of power of discrimination which is an abuse of power. That could stop any continuing of harm that could come from that aspect of your administration here.
B. Go to the statement,{No non-Christian will enter heaven} that is allowed to stand without your tag-line to please be civil in the thread where it is originally posted and post something like:
[...I agree with Lou here that by leaving this statement that could be seen a civil, that a climate of hatred toward the Jews that degrades Jews could be fostered here. There then could be potential harm to not only Jews, but Islamic people as well because the statement insults those religions and degrades them. I did not sanction the statement with a link from me to it where it was first posted because I did not want the poster to feel bad. I realize that by doing that, it is not an excuse to allow hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and the other non-Christians to be seen as that it is not against the rules here which could have the effect of creating potential harm to those depicted as being degraded in the post.
I now realize that potential harm can come from a statement like that if it can be seen as being un repudiated by me and my deputies of record. I hope that this now stops any thinking that Jews and the others are being degraded by me and my deputy team of record.
"Dr Bob"
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2014, at 7:56:31
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-stpheyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2014, at 6:15:01
> > > I am pleading with you to this day to stop the potential harm that could come
> >
> > I wish I had the power to keep potential harm from coming.
> >
> > > You say that whatever you do for readers to trust you because what you do will be good for this community as a whole.
> >
> > Actually, what I say is
> >
> > > > please try ... to trust that I'm doing my best ... to do what *I think* will be good for this community as a whole
> >
> > > I will not let you use the Jewish people or me to be degraded by you
> >
> > I admire your tenacity and your dedication to protecting your people.
> >
> > Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...I wish I had the power to keep potential harm from coming...]
> Potential harm can come from readers seeing anti-Semitic statements standing without your tag-line to please be civil linked to those statements in the thread where they are originally posted. By the omission of your tag-line, readers could then think that the hatred posted toward the Jews is not against your rules. Then coupled with that, the statements that decrease the regard and confidence and respect in which am held that could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions of me are also allowed to stand without your tag-line to please be civil linked to the statement in the thread where they are originally posted.
> The fact that you say that you will not respond to some of my notifications but will respond to others, could be seen by a subset of readers that understand how fascist anti-Semitism is created in a community, to be anti-Jewish which could create a climate of antisenitic hate here by creating a community of acceptance for hatred of the Jews to be seen as civil by you.
> You say that you would want to keep potential harm from coming? Here is how you could start.
> A. Go to your archives of notifications and treat my outstanding notifications in the same manner as others here in the order of the most recent ones from me. This could show readers that think that you are abusing your power against Jews, that you are now going to treat my notifications equally as the other members here, now that you are not using the abuse of power of discrimination which is an abuse of power. That could stop any continuing of harm that could come from that aspect of your administration here.
> B. Go to the statement,{No non-Christian will enter heaven} that is allowed to stand without your tag-line to please be civil in the thread where it is originally posted and post something like:
> [...I agree with Lou here that by leaving this statement that could be seen a civil, that a climate of hatred toward the Jews that degrades Jews could be fostered here. There then could be potential harm to not only Jews, but Islamic people as well because the statement insults those religions and degrades them. I did not sanction the statement with a link from me to it where it was first posted because I did not want the poster to feel bad. I realize that by doing that, it is not an excuse to allow hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and the other non-Christians to be seen as that it is not against the rules here which could have the effect of creating potential harm to those depicted as being degraded in the post.
> I now realize that potential harm can come from a statement like that if it can be seen as being un repudiated by me and my deputies of record. I hope that this now stops any thinking that Jews and the others are being degraded by me and my deputy team of record.
> "Dr Bob"
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You say that you wish that you had the power to stop the potential harm from coming.
Let us look at what a subset of readers that have a knowledge of how hatred toward the Jews can be fostered by an administration of any community.
Another way is for the leader or his deputies to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member. This could be by boycotting their businesses, or as in his community, being told by the leader to not respond to the Jewish poster. In your community, you posted something here that readers could think that you would not respond to me so that others would also not respond to me, that readers could think that you are inciting hatred toward me by asking for a boycott of me here.
What you are doing by doing that to me can be seen by a subset of readers that have an understanding of how fascist anti-Semitism can be fostered in a community as putting a badge of shame upon me so that others could boycott me here. That degrades me as a Jew here because it is you that advocated me being not responded to as being good for this community as a whole because you state for readers to trust you at what you do because in your thinking the community will benefit by what you do which could put the hate in the minds of readers here so that the hatred could be seen by a subset of readers as being state-sponsored and originated by yourself. The fact that your deputies of record did not object to your calling the members here to not respond to me, could lead readers to think that they condone your action toward me here and that you and your deputies are of one accord and one entity bent on a common purpose.
If you want to stop any potential harm to Jews from what you post here, you could post something like this here:
[...Members, be advised that I did post what could be seen by a subset of readers that understands fascist anti-Semitism and how it is fostered in a community by its leader and his deputies, a call for members to not respond to Lou. I realize that by me doing that, a climate of acceptance of anti-Semitism could be fostered here which could be seen as socially acceptable creating a foundation for real-world hatred and violence toward the Jews.
I rescind my statement about Lou and ask that no one in their real life act out hostility toward Jews on the basis that you could think that I am fostering for you to do so by my statement. I realize that what I posted against Lou is a terrible, is a terrible, is a terrible thing to do.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Friends , in the following video, go to Google and type in, making sure that the last character is a "zero"
[ youtube, kCTk2N_iUF0 ]
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2014, at 21:46:25
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-schunn, posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2014, at 7:56:31
> Another way is for the leader ... to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member.
OTOH, if what others wanted to do was throw stones, or worse, the leader could be seen as protecting the Jews or a Jewish member.
> What you are doing by doing that to me can be seen by a subset of readers ... as putting a badge of shame upon me so that others could boycott me here.
I don't see myself as doing that to you myself, since I do respond to you here.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 6:43:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2014, at 21:46:25
> > Another way is for the leader ... to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member.
>
> OTOH, if what others wanted to do was throw stones, or worse, the leader could be seen as protecting the Jews or a Jewish member.
>
> > What you are doing by doing that to me can be seen by a subset of readers ... as putting a badge of shame upon me so that others could boycott me here.
>
> I don't see myself as doing that to you myself, since I do respond to you here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...the leader could be seen as protecting..the Jewish member..]
Attempting to isolate the Jewish member with any encouragement to the other members to do so by encouraging following your example of not responding to me, could lead a subset of jurists to think that you are maliciously attempting to inflict emotional harm toward me. For your rule is to not tell others to not respond to another here but you are doing it anyway to me.
If there are those that respond in an uncivil manner, you have a rule to apply sanctions to them, yet today, there are years of outstanding notifications to you from me, years of statements posted here without your tag-line t please be civil that inflict emotional harm against me that attack my character including that I am a disturbed person, which I am not. By you allowing the members to throw stones at me here, you can encourage hatred toward me to be seen as being good for this community as a whole, according to your thinking. For if a statement is not sanctioned, you say that it is not against your rules. But there is a rule not to post what could lead one to feel put down or accused and there is a rule that says that members are not to post what could lead another to feel that their faith is being put down. You admit that you use selective enforcement of your rules, and it is plainly visible that others here could be led to think that they are allowed to defame me with impunity from your rules on the basis that those statements remain unsanctioned in the thread where they were originally posted. This could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me.
Let us look at what you want readers to believe about that you do not respond to me so that others may not respond to me. That encourages others to not respond to me and could isolate me here and stigmatize me here.
And as I look at what you posted here about me, in shame, a have to ask what the good will be to come of your advocating that others not respond to me here.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/15036.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 6:45:45
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gtoh » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 6:43:48
> > > Another way is for the leader ... to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member.
> >
> > OTOH, if what others wanted to do was throw stones, or worse, the leader could be seen as protecting the Jews or a Jewish member.
> >
> > > What you are doing by doing that to me can be seen by a subset of readers ... as putting a badge of shame upon me so that others could boycott me here.
> >
> > I don't see myself as doing that to you myself, since I do respond to you here.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...the leader could be seen as protecting..the Jewish member..]
> Attempting to isolate the Jewish member with any encouragement to the other members to do so by encouraging following your example of not responding to me, could lead a subset of jurists to think that you are maliciously attempting to inflict emotional harm toward me. For your rule is to not tell others to not respond to another here but you are doing it anyway to me.
> If there are those that respond in an uncivil manner, you have a rule to apply sanctions to them, yet today, there are years of outstanding notifications to you from me, years of statements posted here without your tag-line t please be civil that inflict emotional harm against me that attack my character including that I am a disturbed person, which I am not. By you allowing the members to throw stones at me here, you can encourage hatred toward me to be seen as being good for this community as a whole, according to your thinking. For if a statement is not sanctioned, you say that it is not against your rules. But there is a rule not to post what could lead one to feel put down or accused and there is a rule that says that members are not to post what could lead another to feel that their faith is being put down. You admit that you use selective enforcement of your rules, and it is plainly visible that others here could be led to think that they are allowed to defame me with impunity from your rules on the basis that those statements remain unsanctioned in the thread where they were originally posted. This could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me.
> Let us look at what you want readers to believe about that you do not respond to me so that others may not respond to me. That encourages others to not respond to me and could isolate me here and stigmatize me here.
> And as I look at what you posted here about me, in shame, a have to ask what the good will be to come of your advocating that others not respond to me here.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/15036.htmlcorrected link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2014, at 0:47:47
In reply to Lou's correction-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gtoh, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 6:45:45
> > > Another way is for the leader ... to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member.
> >
> > OTOH, if what others wanted to do was throw stones, or worse, the leader could be seen as protecting the Jews or a Jewish member.
>
> Attempting to isolate the Jewish member with any encouragement to the other members to do so by encouraging following your example of not responding to me, could lead a subset of jurists to think that you are maliciously attempting to inflict emotional harm toward me.True, it could.
> Let us look at what you want readers to believe about that you do not respond to me so that others may not respond to me. That encourages others to not respond to me and could isolate me here and stigmatize me here.
> And as I look at what you posted here about me, in shame, a have to ask what the good will be to come of your advocating that others not respond to me here.> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
That's the same idea. I'm glad I'm at least to some extent consistent. The good that could come is that you could be protected.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 11:38:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2014, at 0:47:47
> > > > Another way is for the leader ... to arouse hatred toward the Jews by advocating that others not respond to the Jews or a Jewish member.
> > >
> > > OTOH, if what others wanted to do was throw stones, or worse, the leader could be seen as protecting the Jews or a Jewish member.
> >
> > Attempting to isolate the Jewish member with any encouragement to the other members to do so by encouraging following your example of not responding to me, could lead a subset of jurists to think that you are maliciously attempting to inflict emotional harm toward me.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > Let us look at what you want readers to believe about that you do not respond to me so that others may not respond to me. That encourages others to not respond to me and could isolate me here and stigmatize me here.
> > And as I look at what you posted here about me, in shame, a have to ask what the good will be to come of your advocating that others not respond to me here.
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
>
> That's the same idea. I'm glad I'm at least to some extent consistent. The good that could come is that you could be protected.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above in that you say that good can come to the community as a whole by you ignoring me which could encourage others to ignore me which then the good to the community is that I am protected.
On the surface of your statement here, there could be a subset of readers that throw stones at me and that would leave the other members unless you are wanting to mean that there are no members here at all that have dialog with me without throwing stones at me.
So if we think of what you wrote as that there are just asubset of members that you want to not respond to me that throw stones at me, I am only having dialog with a few members here. What I need to know is to what degree of stone-throwing that I am subjected to by the following members here. If 5 is the most extreme use of stone-throwing at me here and1 is the least, how would you rank the following members?
Here are the top ten members of organized posters that I have dialog with here. Please put a number from 1 to 5, as 5 being the worst, after the members to show how you think the extent of stone-throwing at me is.
A. Phillipa
B. 10derheart
C. Dinah
D. Larry Hoover
E. Scott
F. Willful
G. Sukarno
H. Beckett
K. PartlyCloudy
L. the unknown poster of your choice
Lou Pilder
Posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2014, at 20:49:51
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 11:38:16
Lou you surprise me. As you and I have emailed quite a bit. I've never that I know of criticized you in emails. I may have not done what you asked but that is not stone throwing. I have no stones. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2014, at 23:57:02
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 11:38:16
> So if we think of what you wrote as that there are just asubset of members that you want to not respond to me that throw stones at me, I am only having dialog with a few members here. What I need to know is to what degree of stone-throwing that I am subjected to by the following members here. If 5 is the most extreme use of stone-throwing at me here and1 is the least, how would you rank the following members?
To what degree of stone-throwing do you feel subjected to overall here?
Bob
PS: No code in your last subject line?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2014, at 7:52:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2014, at 23:57:02
> > So if we think of what you wrote as that there are just asubset of members that you want to not respond to me that throw stones at me, I am only having dialog with a few members here. What I need to know is to what degree of stone-throwing that I am subjected to by the following members here. If 5 is the most extreme use of stone-throwing at me here and1 is the least, how would you rank the following members?
>
> To what degree of stone-throwing do you feel subjected to overall here?
>
> Bob
>
> PS: No code in your last subject line?Mr. Hsiung,
To protect me by encouraging members to not respond to me is in and of itself could be thought to be an overgeneralization by you according to a subset of readers. They have a rational basis for thinking that because you did not specify who the members are or as to how many members are throwing stones at me. What you did post about me is that others might not respond to me if you did not respond to me, which could be thought by a subset of readers that you want to encourage them to shun me here, or isolate me if they see that you do not respond to me. That could stigmatize me here and put me in a false light which could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions of me.
Let their be no misunderstanding here. Those that throw stones at me here have your remedy to be sanctioned for anything that could be posted that leads me to feel put down or accused. That would protect me from further insults from anyone that throws stones at me here because they would be blocked from posting any more of it. If you were to rescind your statement in question here that you do not respond to me so that others might not respond to me, that could go a long way in stopping others from being persuaded by you to what could amount to you encouraging readers to shun me here. I am asking that you post now here something like:
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
There is a post by me here that could be thought that I am encouraging members to shun Lou. I take full responsibility for what I post and I am sorry if any readers received that message from what I posted about Lou and should not have posted it. So what I am going to do is to post response to all of Lou's outstanding notifications starting with the most recent ones to show readers that I am taking back what I posted about Lou.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2014, at 21:44:10
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-tehkbk » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2014, at 7:52:14
> To protect me by encouraging members to not respond to me is in and of itself could be thought to be an overgeneralization by you according to a subset of readers. They have a rational basis for thinking that because you did not specify who the members are or as to how many members are throwing stones at me. What you did post about me is that others might not respond to me if you did not respond to me, which could be thought by a subset of readers that you want to encourage them to shun me here, or isolate me if they see that you do not respond to me. That could stigmatize me here and put me in a false light which could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions of me.
That's true, it could.
You know, I wouldn't say (if I did before, I rescind that) I want to encourage members not to respond to you. What I want is to show members that they have the option of responding or not responding to you.
> Let their be no misunderstanding here. Those that throw stones at me here have your remedy to be sanctioned for anything that could be posted that leads me to feel put down or accused. That would protect me from further insults from anyone that throws stones at me here because they would be blocked from posting any more of it.
What I hear you saying is that my remedy helps you feel protected here. That's my intent, anyway.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2014, at 6:30:54
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2014, at 21:44:10
> > To protect me by encouraging members to not respond to me is in and of itself could be thought to be an overgeneralization by you according to a subset of readers. They have a rational basis for thinking that because you did not specify who the members are or as to how many members are throwing stones at me. What you did post about me is that others might not respond to me if you did not respond to me, which could be thought by a subset of readers that you want to encourage them to shun me here, or isolate me if they see that you do not respond to me. That could stigmatize me here and put me in a false light which could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions of me.
>
> That's true, it could.
>
> You know, I wouldn't say (if I did before, I rescind that) I want to encourage members not to respond to you. What I want is to show members that they have the option of responding or not responding to you.
>
> > Let their be no misunderstanding here. Those that throw stones at me here have your remedy to be sanctioned for anything that could be posted that leads me to feel put down or accused. That would protect me from further insults from anyone that throws stones at me here because they would be blocked from posting any more of it.
>
> What I hear you saying is that my remedy helps you feel protected here. That's my intent, anyway.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You say that it is your intent to protect members, including myself, by applying your remedy to sanction statements that could put down or accuse another. But it is also then implying that if you use your option to not respond to me, that you will then not use your remedy to protect me from the stone-throwers here. There is a rational basis for me to think that because you say that you have a notification procedure to get from those that they think that a statement could induce harm to them if it is allowed to be seen as civil by you and that you will abide by your policy to act on the notification in one of two ways, but you give yourself the option of acting on notifications from me or not. By the fact that I have posted reminders to you here of outstanding notifications, those were the ones that you used your self-made rule to give yourself the option to not respond to notifications from me. What this shows goes to your intent in that you say that it is your intent to use your policy to prevent harm to members from posts that defame another, except posts of that nature directed at me as that it is plainly visible the years of {stone-throwers} that the subject here is of now. If you do not intend to protect me as the others here, that shows to a subset of readers a malicious intent against me in particular because you admit that your policy is to protect members from defamation by sanctioning posts of that nature as being accused or put down by a statement here. Yet today, there are years of outstanding notifications from me to you and posts directing harmful defamation toward me that are allowed to stand without your tagline to please be civil where the tortuous statement is originally posted. By you giving yourself the option, you also give yourself the option for harm to come to me, which subset of readers could think is your intent. They could have a rational basis to think that because you admit that your remedy to prevent the harm from tortuous statements is to sanction those type of statements, yet you allow those to be directed at me without sanctioning them with your tagline to please be civil where the statement is originally posted, which could mean to those readers that what you are doing here could be considered to be a malicious attempt to harm me by using the member's actionable posts to remain to be seen as civil by you by you not using your own policy to protect me. You say that there is not an excuse to allow uncivil posts, yet today, you have posted in one particular case that you have an excuse to not sanction defamation toward me bypostng your tagline to pleas be civil where the statement is originally posted, because you archived the post. But there could have been a notification from me about that statement as you admit. That could lead a subset of readers to further consider your actions toward me here to be malicious in your intent to harm me by allowing members to defame me here because it is reasonably foreseeable by your own admission, that there are natural consequences that you are making the decision to bring about, namely the harm that could come to me by you not using your own policy to protect me from the stone-throwers here by sanctioning the defamation posted at me here in the thread where the statement is originally posted to that statement, because it is within your power to use your sanctioning of the defamation toward me here, and you choose to allow it to stand because you say that it will be good for you and the community as a whole to ignore some of my pleas to sanction the anti-Semitic statements and the defamation directed to me here.
Now that you have in place that you can allow defamation directed at me here so that I am not protected, the additional consequences that flow naturally from allowing hatred to be posted against me here could lead a subset of readers to think that is what your intent is. They have a rational basis to think that because there are now additional reminders from me concerning more outstanding notifications which shows that you have not used your policy to protect me here which could lead to those thinking that you have an actual intent to allow harm to come to me.
I think that it could go a long way to preventing more harm coming to me from the defamation allowed to be posted here by you against the Jews and me here by you not posting your tagline to please be civil where the statement is originally posted, for you to go to your archives of notifications and start using your own policy that could protect me from the emotional/psychological harm that could come to me from your intention to allow some of my notifications to be ignored by you for it lies within your power to prevent harm by protecting me from the defamation by sanctioning those statements.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2014, at 23:56:51
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ihntent » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2014, at 6:30:54
> You say that it is your intent to protect members, including myself, by applying your remedy to sanction statements that could put down or accuse another. But it is also then implying that if you use your option to not respond to me, that you will then not use your remedy to protect me from the stone-throwers here.
1. I do sometimes use my remedy to protect you. Most recently:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1062264.html
2. It's tricky (requires skill, knack, or caution) because if I apply my remedy, the poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
3. It fits with that policy I like:
> > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2014, at 9:47:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2014, at 23:56:51
> > You say that it is your intent to protect members, including myself, by applying your remedy to sanction statements that could put down or accuse another. But it is also then implying that if you use your option to not respond to me, that you will then not use your remedy to protect me from the stone-throwers here.
>
> 1. I do sometimes use my remedy to protect you. Most recently:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1062264.html
>
> 2. It's tricky (requires skill, knack, or caution) because if I apply my remedy, the poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> 3. It fits with that policy I like:
>
> > > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
>
> BobMr. Hsing,
Note my objection to your use of selective enforcement of your rules as can be seen by your reply to me here that I am responding to.
Time and space do not allow me at this time to expound on what a subset of readers could think you are admitting to be doing here as {selective enforcement}. To sanction one stone-thrower does not prevent the harm that could come to me by you allowing others to inflict emotional pain upon me with defamation of insults to my character that you allow to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you not posting your tagline to be civil to the defamation toward me to the statement where it is posted originally. Your sanction of one does ot annul the fact that there are other defamatory postings allowed to be seen by you as civil where they are originally posted, nor does it address the antisemitic statements being also allowed to be seen here as supportive by the nature that there s not your tagline to please be civil where the anti-Semitism is posted originally.
In fact, your admission of using selective enforcement here is contrary to your TOS as in your FAQ. As to if a subset of readers could think that your intent is to allow harm to those that you want to be harmed, that is a separate subject that I would like to keep separate for now. This is because a rational reader could think that if the fire department came to a house on fire and there was a tree on fire in the yard and put that fire out but left the house to burn, that their selective enforcement of their obligation to put out the fire was not done and could have had a guilty reason in their minds to allow the house to burn down. This "guilty mind" is a concept that is used in determining the {intent} of one that harms another either by themselves inflicting the harm or allowing others to inflict the harm to another when they could have prevented the harm. Some could think that for the fire-fighters to watch the house burn down when they could have prevented it, that those fire fighters were culpable as if they started the fire themselves.
The historical record shows the tragic consequences to those that were victims of discrimination by selective enforcement. Your TOS could lead a subset of readers to think that when you say that members are to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence, that you mean that you will not use selective enforcement in applying your rules here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2014, at 1:14:51
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pselktv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2014, at 9:47:47
> Note my objection to your use of selective enforcement of your rules as can be seen by your reply to me here that I am responding to.
Noted.
> To sanction one stone-thrower does not prevent the harm that could come to me by you allowing others to inflict emotional pain upon me with defamation of insults to my character
True.
> Your TOS could lead a subset of readers to think that when you say that members are to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence, that you mean that you will not use selective enforcement in applying your rules here.
True. And when the police say that drivers are to obey the speed limit at all times, a subset of drivers could think that they will give everyone who goes too fast a ticket.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2014, at 7:49:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2014, at 1:14:51
> > Note my objection to your use of selective enforcement of your rules as can be seen by your reply to me here that I am responding to.
>
> Noted.
>
> > To sanction one stone-thrower does not prevent the harm that could come to me by you allowing others to inflict emotional pain upon me with defamation of insults to my character
>
> True.
>
> > Your TOS could lead a subset of readers to think that when you say that members are to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence, that you mean that you will not use selective enforcement in applying your rules here.
>
> True. And when the police say that drivers are to obey the speed limit at all times, a subset of drivers could think that they will give everyone who goes too fast a ticket.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Your posting here of what could be thought that you are using an analogy to compare yourself with a traffic policeman giving speeding tickets could IMHO seriously mislead a subset of readers. A rational basis for thinking that you are comparing yourself with a traffic policeman is because you posted this here, so readers could think that because you posted it, you are presenting it as a way of readers to consider your role and function here as owner/operator of this site. But another analogy could have been posted here by you to IMHO more accurately reflect your role as owner/operator here.
I think that a more accurate representation of your role here could be thought to be like a 911 operator for taking emergency calls. I base this on the fact that you have made it available to readers to {notify the administration} by clicking on a box, like making the 911 call. And also that you have a team of deputies that function to implement your policies and rules to prevent harm that could come to members by statements that put down or accuse another which defamatory statements directed at another member could do. And I have made the objection that your use of selective responding to notifications to the administration could lead to tragic consequences to those members that become victims to harmful statements because you will not act on them according to your own policy in your TOS here.
If a 911 operator was to respond selectively to calls, some jurisdictions could bring civil/criminal charges to that operator for any deaths or injuries that resulted because the operator refused to respond to the emergency call. In some jurisdictions, the failure of the owner/operator and any deputies of such that allowed a statement to stand in a web site that caused a death of someone could be held liable for the death because they could have prevented the death and did not sanction the post that had encouragement for one to kill themselves. The harm that could come to members here could be of the same nature because the population here is vulnerable to killing themselves due to the fact that in a mental health community, posters are in a state of seeking help from depression and addiction and can be under the influence of mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor that you allow to be promoted here. Those drugs are under scrutiny and many research studies show that they can induce suicidal/homicidal thinking. To allow members to be recipients of defamation here without you or your deputies of record sanctioning the defamation, could lead the victim of the hate to be drawn down into a vortex of depression that could lead to suicide.
In other posts that you use selective enforcement, these are those that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and anti-Islamic feelings. Your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to think that their faith is being put down. If you select which faiths are allowed to be put down, such as allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil here where they are originally posted here, then a subset of readers could think that your policy is to discriminate against Jews here, which a subset of those that follow hate-groups could think that this site is an anti-Semitic site based on their definition that if a site has an anti-Semitic policy, it is an anti-Semitic site just as if a company had an antisemitic policy, it could be thought to be an anti-Semitic company.
I am asking you to:
A. Immediately post to the anti-Semitic statements and the statements that defame me that you allow to be seen as civil here where they are originally posted something like:
NOTICE TO ALL READERS
I realize now that my use of selective enforcement of my rules here is contrary to sound mental-health practices and can lead to discrimination which is an abuse of power. This could also lead to members that are victims of discrimination here to have feelings of unworthiness that could lead to suicide.
I am taking the following remedial steps to help those that feel that I have contributed to the deterioration of your mental health
First, I will respond now to all of Lou's outstanding notifications by referring to my archives of notifications. Then Lou will have the opportunity to respond to what I post to them.
Second, in Lou's responses, I will be able to see more clearly how members could benefit from what is in his responses and retract my 3- consecutive post rule.
Now I think that if you do that, {improvement} to the community could be a result and lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided and members could hear from me by reading my responses to your replies to my outstanding notifications.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2014, at 23:47:31
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-911 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2014, at 7:49:06
> Your posting here of what could be thought that you are using an analogy to compare yourself with a traffic policeman giving speeding tickets could IMHO seriously mislead a subset of readers.
> I think that a more accurate representation of your role here could be thought to be like a 911 operator for taking emergency calls. I base this on the fact that you have made it available to readers to {notify the administration} by clicking on a box, like making the 911 call.What an interesting -- and different -- perspective. I see "Administration" as different than "Emergency Response" or "Rescue", but there's been overlap, and a subset of readers could see them as the same.
I imagine not responding to someone's emergency calls could lead them to feel neglected and unvalued and hurt and angry.
Bob
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.