![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 302 to 326 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 20:19:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response-putting down happens-encourage » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2013, at 18:31:45
> What if I said I believe in Spirituality? That the universe was created with the Big Bang Theory? The Whipple Theory? Would this change things?
Phillipa,
The issue here is that the rules are to not post what could put down those of other faiths. Saying that you believe something is OK as long as what you believe does not put down those of other faiths.
So if you believe in Spirituality, that is Ok to post here, for you did not contrast your belief with another belief in a way that demeans the other belief or says that your belief is superior in some way to another belief.
In:
[...Christianity is he only religion that has a pathway back to God...], the use of the word {only} precludes all other religions. So, Islam and Judaism and all other non-Christian religions could be thought by a subset of people that read the statement to mean that the non-Christian religions are being put down because they do not have a way back to God in their religion. So, if you are evaluating the statement as to if it is an anti-Semitic statement and you agree with Mr Hsiung that an anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews, then the statement is an anti-Semitic statement. The fact that it is unsanctioned could foster antisemitism because a subset of readers could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and that readers are to try to trust Mr Hsiung in what he does, and in this case, I guess what he and his deputies do not do.
That could cause a creation or development of information as being acceptable here because Mr. Hsiung and his deputies could control the content and assist in the development of material that they say is what is or is not civil and supportive.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 12:52:33
In reply to Lou's response-phostering happens » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 9:19:32
> I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements
> Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion...
Before we include more posts, I'd like to try to clarify what I'm open to, to avoid being at cross-purposes.
I'm open to discussing policies, including how they're applied and how they might be improved.
I'm not open to considering sanctions here. Requests for sanctions should be submitted using the "notify administrators" button. (One policy is not to sanction archived posts.)
I'm also open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
I understand you may not find that acceptable. We may remain a Rock and a Hard Place. I can accept not being able to change you.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 13:01:50
In reply to Re: dog crap » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on November 29, 2013, at 17:27:47
> Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively.
I was speaking of you. I'm glad you have a shield. I like the idea of coaching others to use theirs effectively. Would you consider doing that?
> Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other.
I'm sure you know that saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. My feeling about this is something like: Stop a man from hurling dog crap and you protect others for a day; teach them to shield themselves and you protect them for a lifetime.
Bob
Posted by SLS on December 1, 2013, at 15:18:57
In reply to Re: dog crap, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 13:01:50
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2013, at 15:22:11
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 12:52:33
> > I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements
>
> > Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion...
>
> Before we include more posts, I'd like to try to clarify what I'm open to, to avoid being at cross-purposes.
>
> I'm open to discussing policies, including how they're applied and how they might be improved.
>
> I'm not open to considering sanctions here. Requests for sanctions should be submitted using the "notify administrators" button. (One policy is not to sanction archived posts.)
>
> I'm also open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
>
> I understand you may not find that acceptable. We may remain a Rock and a Hard Place. I can accept not being able to change you.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
In regards to clarification, here is what I am open to.
I am open to any way that you could effect remedial action to the posts in question that in particular but not limited to, put down Jews and/or be accusative or defaming to me or others.
One way that you have already done so is in the following. The idea is to do something in the thread where the post in question appears so that:
A. readers could know that the statement is not supportive or conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and will not be good for this community as a whole,
and,
B. The reason that changes what was originally posted that could be seen as civil, but now it is not.
and,
C. If or if not you made an error originally.
Now here is one that you have already done and if you could follow your own remediation in the posts in question as you have done in the following, that would be acceptable to me.
Lou Pilder
To see this post, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ admin, 1050578 ]
the 1050578 is in the colored strip URL
Posted by Phillipa on December 1, 2013, at 20:54:54
In reply to Lou's rply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-1050578 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2013, at 15:22:11
Lou seriously did you take the time to read and process what Dr Bob wrote you? Two separate issues. If you wish to change what was written years ago. Hit the notification button. Here is only for policy. And did you get the doc crap? Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2013, at 0:39:41
In reply to Re: dog crap, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 13:01:50
why do you want to help us?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2013, at 2:23:15
In reply to That's an interesting proposal. (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on December 1, 2013, at 15:18:57
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2013, at 3:29:57
In reply to Lou's rply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-1050578 » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2013, at 15:22:11
> > I'm ... open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
>
> I am open to any way that you could effect remedial action to the posts in question that in particular but not limited to, put down Jews and/or be accusative or defaming to me or others.
> One way that you have already done so is in the following. The idea is to do something in the thread where the post in question appears so that:
> A. readers could know that the statement is not supportive or conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and will not be good for this community as a whole,
> and,
> B. The reason that changes what was originally posted that could be seen as civil, but now it is not.
> and,
> C. If or if not you made an error originally.My preference would be to do this in a positive way. Rather than label a statement as not supportive, post a restatement that would be more supportive. Rather than label myself as having done something wrong, doing something better.
If you'd consider that, we could give it a try and see if it's actually possible.
Bob
Posted by SLS on December 3, 2013, at 8:27:11
In reply to Re: I'm glad you think so (nm) » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2013, at 2:23:15
You have the patience of a saint.
I see that your current interactions with Lou Pilder are very positive and constructive. I am incredulous. But then again, that's why they pay you the big bucks.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2013, at 10:01:27
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2013, at 3:29:57
> > > I'm ... open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
> >
> > I am open to any way that you could effect remedial action to the posts in question that in particular but not limited to, put down Jews and/or be accusative or defaming to me or others.
> > One way that you have already done so is in the following. The idea is to do something in the thread where the post in question appears so that:
> > A. readers could know that the statement is not supportive or conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and will not be good for this community as a whole,
> > and,
> > B. The reason that changes what was originally posted that could be seen as civil, but now it is not.
> > and,
> > C. If or if not you made an error originally.
>
> My preference would be to do this in a positive way. Rather than label a statement as not supportive, post a restatement that would be more supportive. Rather than label myself as having done something wrong, doing something better.
>
> If you'd consider that, we could give it a try and see if it's actually possible.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by what you have posted to me. If you could post what you prefer to do with the following, then I could have a better understanding of your proposal and respond accordingly. I would like to see how you could address this post that puts down, in particular but not limited to, Jews.
The post is something like:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
What I would be looking for in your response to that post is if your response clarifies to readers that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community according to your rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths that do have a pathway back to God, which I think could put out any fire of hate toward Jews and Islamic people and the others that could result from the insult to those people of those religions by the statement precluding those people of those faiths that are not Christiandom based, from having a pathway back to God.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2013, at 19:12:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstlbrnng » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2013, at 10:01:27
Lou is anyone sure of what you post. I feel that you could be unsure for a long time. Is Dr Bob in your eyes unable to post a comment so you feel sure? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2013, at 0:49:12
In reply to Re: I'm glad you think so » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on December 3, 2013, at 8:27:11
> You have the patience of a saint.
Thanks. Wouldn't you say Lou has shown patience, too?
Bob
Posted by SLS on December 5, 2013, at 8:09:35
In reply to Re: patience, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2013, at 0:49:12
> > You have the patience of a saint.
>
> Thanks. Wouldn't you say Lou has shown patience, too?
>
> BobI would say that Lou Pilder excels in his resolve and vigilance to effect change. I am not as sure about his having patience, though. However, I am not as "tuned-in" to him as you are.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2013, at 18:01:56
In reply to Re: patience, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2013, at 0:49:12
> > You have the patience of a saint.
>
> Thanks. Wouldn't you say Lou has shown patience, too?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote, [...Lou has shown patience.... ]The fact that you have stated that you give yourself the option of not responding to me so that others can see your non-response to my requests/notifications as some type of encouragement for the members to also not respond to me, is in and of itself described in the psychological literature. And the fact that you have had multiple deputies to do your wishes, and they also have not responded to my requests/notifications over years, could cause
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 9:12:29
In reply to Lou's response- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2013, at 18:01:56
Lou, I'm one post away from posting things I have heretofore kept off the boards. It seems vastly unfair of Dr. Bob that you are allowed to post anti-deputy remarks without our being able to defend ourselves with the full facts.
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 9:20:26
In reply to Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 8:11:08
> My question here is could not the deputies not using their power to sanction anti-Semitic statements cause outrage to Jews and other people of other faiths that also could feel put down when they read a statement that is allowed to stand that could lead those in question to feel put down? The feelings that Jews could have by seeing anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand by all of the deputies can cause a Jew to speculate as to why all of those deputies have not responded to the notifications that the deputies state to use that feature to report anti-Semitic statements. As to if that could cause me to hate them, I guess it could cause outrage and that could lead to hatred toward them for some to seek vengeance against them.
If the only way to protect myself against anti-deputy statements that may arouse hatred and "vengeance" against deputies - vengeance that could conceivably take the form of violence, is to go against my moral code, then it is obviously time to leave this place.
Get behind me, tempter of dishonor. By which, of course, I do not mean Lou.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2013, at 9:44:13
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstlbrnng » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2013, at 10:01:27
> > > > I'm ... open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
>
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by what you have posted to me. If you could post what you prefer to do with the following, then I could have a better understanding of your proposal and respond accordingly. I would like to see how you could address this post that puts down, in particular but not limited to, Jews.
>
> What I would be looking for in your response to that post is if your response clarifies to readers that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community according to your rulesI think you mean this statement in this post:
> > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832658.html
I propose I post to that thread something like:
> The above could be read as saying other faiths don't offer such a pathway. It would've been more civil to say:
>
> > > What is Christianity? A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
>
> Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2013, at 9:52:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 9:20:26
> If the only way to protect myself against anti-deputy statements ... is to go against my moral code, then it is obviously time to leave this place.
Scott, would you consider coaching Dinah on using her shield effectively? That might enable her to stay without going against her moral code. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 11:47:49
In reply to Re: protection » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2013, at 9:52:48
I'd be interested to hear Scott's response on how 10der and I should learn to accept that the moderator of this site thinks it's acceptable for people, or a person, to throw sh*t at us at this site.
Posted by jane d on December 6, 2013, at 14:56:54
In reply to Re: protection, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 11:47:49
> I'd be interested to hear Scott's response on how 10der and I should learn to accept that the moderator of this site thinks it's acceptable for people, or a person, to throw sh*t at us at this site.
(( dinah )) Vapor. He's throwing vapor. People here have known (and loved) you for years. That's not going to change.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2013, at 15:52:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2013, at 9:44:13
> > > > > I'm ... open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
> >
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by what you have posted to me. If you could post what you prefer to do with the following, then I could have a better understanding of your proposal and respond accordingly. I would like to see how you could address this post that puts down, in particular but not limited to, Jews.
> >
> > What I would be looking for in your response to that post is if your response clarifies to readers that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community according to your rules
>
> I think you mean this statement in this post:
>
> > > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832658.html
>
> I propose I post to that thread something like:
>
> > The above could be read as saying other faiths don't offer such a pathway. It would've been more civil to say:
> >
> > > > What is Christianity? A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
Your proposal is looked at by me to determine if what you are going to post in that thread:
A. Lets readers know that the original post in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
B. It is against the rule that you have to not post what could put down those of other faiths
C. There is a reason that for years the post was allowed to stand by you and the former deputies that were on record at the time of posting so that readers do not have to speculate as to why a post that puts down Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have faiths that are not Christian that do have a pathway back to God.
In my evaluation of your proposal, I see that you did say that the statement in question could be seen by readers as that other faiths do not offer such a pathway. Then your more civil re wording does abide by your rule to not use words that preclude other faiths from having a pathway back to God such as [...{only }Christianity has a pathway...].
As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and the others that the statement insults. For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on December 6, 2013, at 18:58:26
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-lstyrz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2013, at 15:52:47
> > > > > > I'm ... open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
> > >
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by what you have posted to me. If you could post what you prefer to do with the following, then I could have a better understanding of your proposal and respond accordingly. I would like to see how you could address this post that puts down, in particular but not limited to, Jews.
> > >
> > > What I would be looking for in your response to that post is if your response clarifies to readers that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community according to your rules
> >
> > I think you mean this statement in this post:
> >
> > > > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832658.html
> >
> > I propose I post to that thread something like:
> >
> > > The above could be read as saying other faiths don't offer such a pathway. It would've been more civil to say:
> > >
> > > > > What is Christianity? A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> Your proposal is looked at by me to determine if what you are going to post in that thread:
> A. Lets readers know that the original post in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> B. It is against the rule that you have to not post what could put down those of other faiths
> C. There is a reason that for years the post was allowed to stand by you and the former deputies that were on record at the time of posting so that readers do not have to speculate as to why a post that puts down Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have faiths that are not Christian that do have a pathway back to God.
> In my evaluation of your proposal, I see that you did say that the statement in question could be seen by readers as that other faiths do not offer such a pathway. Then your more civil re wording does abide by your rule to not use words that preclude other faiths from having a pathway back to God such as [...{only }Christianity has a pathway...].
> As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and the others that the statement insults. For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
Now that we have that one past us and there will be a post in tha thread by you, let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
[...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
Lou Pilder
Posted by larryhoover on December 6, 2013, at 22:10:19
In reply to Re: protection, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 11:47:49
> I'd be interested to hear Scott's response on how 10der and I should learn to accept that the moderator of this site thinks it's acceptable for people, or a person, to throw sh*t at us at this site.
I can't believe that I'm a witness to such an abuse of civility. Truly, sincerely, there is no better example of what civility actually is, than to protect individuals from the throwing of sh*t upon them.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 14:17:46
In reply to Re: protection » Dinah, posted by larryhoover on December 6, 2013, at 22:10:19
> such an abuse of civility.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block = 1 week
period of time since previous block = 3 weeks
severity = 2 (default)
block length = 1.92 rounded = 2 weeks
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.