![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 592 to 616 of 795. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2014, at 6:46:43
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2014, at 23:47:31
> > 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.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...not responding...could lead..to feel neglected and unvalued and hurt and angry...].
You agree that by you not responding to my notifications, as well as others, that there could be those feelings that you described induced into the one that you refused to respond to. Yet today, you present yourself as having a mental-health site for support and education.
I say to you that as long as my notifications to you remain un responded to, that any claim for the promotion of this site by you that the readers could have their mental-health improved, could be thought by a subset of readers to be false, inaccurate and grossly misleading and could result in the deaths of a subset of readers. I have a rational basis to think this because you agree that discrimination is an abuse of power and that being supportive takes precedence and that members are to be civil at all times. And that your policy is to not wait to sanction a statement that could put down or accuse someone here because one match could start a forest fire. The fact that you changed from following your own policy does not annul the fact that the policy was a good and just policy to prevent harm to the recipient of the put down or accusation. If you changed your thinking that put downs and accusations could not induce harm to the recipient of those, and that one match could not start a forest fire, please post that here now.
Now one match could start a forest fire even if you have changed your thinking that it can't. And when one knows that there is a fire started and refuses to have it put out when they could have done so, then there are those that see the refusal as allowing the escalating of the fire, and in this site, promoting the fire of hate that could lead to the feelings that you admit could be the result of the fire that you refuse to have put out. As long as you and your deputies of record ignore my notifications, the statements that I have alerted to you in them, could be seen as civil by you, for you state that un sanctioned statements are not against your rules. The statements that are against Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, being allowed to be seen where they are posted as being civil by you, can carry the flame of hate way beyond this forum that you say is for support.
The wrongs that I seek to condemn here, that I see as calculated by you and your deputies of record, are so malignant, so devastating, that I can no tolerate them being ignored, for I see it as the greatest menace of our times. The common sense of mankind demands that a psychiatrist that admits that not responding to the notifications that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings sent to him can induce a degrading of the sender's mental health, and start a forest fire of hatred toward the Jews, to be met here to restore the human dignities of those that are the one's whose faith is allowed to be seen as being put down here. for if this is not met here, hatred toward the Jews could get a renewed strength by seeing anti-Semitism as civil here, which could lead a subset of readers to think that this site is a living symbol of racial hatred carried out by a man with great power of the internet to leave no home in the world to be untouched.
You say that what goes here is what is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. We will never forget the record on which anti-Semitism was judged yesterday. And we will know that it will be judged again regardless if you are allowed to continue to use discrimination as a tool to not respond to my notifications. For by the fruits that come from that, you will be judged.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2014, at 1:00:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2014, at 6:46:43
> And ... your policy is to not wait to sanction a statement that could put down or accuse someone here because one match could start a forest fire.
That was my old policy. My new policy is to accept matches that I see as unlikely to start a forest fire.
> when one knows that there is a fire started and refuses to have it put out when they could have done so, then there are those that see the refusal as allowing the escalating of the fire
These are matches, not fires, but yes, I'm giving them the opportunity to escalate. If they do, then I'll do my best to put them out.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2014, at 6:56:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2014, at 1:00:10
> > And ... your policy is to not wait to sanction a statement that could put down or accuse someone here because one match could start a forest fire.
>
> That was my old policy. My new policy is to accept matches that I see as unlikely to start a forest fire.
>
> > when one knows that there is a fire started and refuses to have it put out when they could have done so, then there are those that see the refusal as allowing the escalating of the fire
>
> These are matches, not fires, but yes, I'm giving them the opportunity to escalate. If they do, then I'll do my best to put them out.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm giving them (statements that are anti-Semitic and statements that defame me and other uncivil statements) the opportunity to escalate...].
A subset of readers could think after reading that, that you are being malicious. They have a rational basis for thinking that because it is well-known that defamation and anti-Semitism posted here in particular unsanctioned ,could cause harm to the recipients of the defamation. And those readers could think that you as a psychiatrist could foresee that type of harm coming to those recipients of the hate being allowed to be seen as civil in the posts where they originate. Your TOS in the FAQ has not been changed and that is what overrides here. For if you now say that without changing your posted FAQ/TOS that you do not have to abide by your own rules and the enforcement of those rules, that subset of readers could think that you are maliciously attempting to manipulate the content that could allow particular people, such as myself, to be victims of the intentional infliction of emotional distress via defamation and anti-Semitism being allowed by you to escalate. When you allow the escalation, there could be the case where you could be too late to stop it, for the forum can go into homes all over the world and you are not 24/7 moderating your forum anyway, and you give yourself the option of not responding to my alerts to you via your notification system which could further lead those readers to think that you are being malicious here. They could think that it is your actual intention to cause injury to me by allowing third -party posts to defame me and insult my faith.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 2:58:58
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-tuleyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2014, at 6:56:41
> When you allow the escalation, there could be the case where you could be too late to stop it, for the forum can go into homes all over the world and you are not 24/7 moderating your forum anyway
That's true, there could be that case.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2014, at 9:47:00
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 2:58:58
> > When you allow the escalation, there could be the case where you could be too late to stop it, for the forum can go into homes all over the world and you are not 24/7 moderating your forum anyway
>
> That's true, there could be that case.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. Your terms of service invite people to participate in a mental-health forum for support and your rules lead readers to think that they have a safe environment, and not be subjected to ridicule, mocking and taunting, debasement and other forms of defamation as your rule states to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused and not to post insensitive content or vulgar language that could offend others. And also not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
You also list how you will enforce those rules and how one can alert you to posts through your notification system. That all can give readers an expectation of security that they will not have to suffer the harm that can come to them if defaming statements are directed against them, and if statements that put down their faith are posted here. But that expectation , now, could lead them falsely into a community that is not going to uphold those terms of service for you now state that you can turn a blind eye to much and allow defamation to be posted and those readers do not know that. They do not know that because your TOS states otherwise. A subset of readers could think that you are using deception now to attract members under the aspect that your rules will protect them when you state here that you are operating differently from your stated TOS. This could lead to harm coming to people that take you at your word when they come here and read your TOS that protects them from the harm of defamation since your rules state not to post what could lead one to feel accused or put down and not to post what could put down those of other faiths.
The harm from defamation being allowed to be posted is well-known by psychologists and psychiatrists. It could lead one to kill themselves. It would be too late for you to sanction a defamatory post then, after you allow {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to be seen as civil by you in the post where it is originally made. That could trigger a deep vortex downward of feelings of unworthiness, let's say, to a Jewish middle school girl that is already in depression as coming here for support. The support that she could receive is that she is inferior to Christians for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven}. It is the statement in and of itself that insults the girl's faith, not as to if there is escalation. The statement is called a flame, and fans the flames of hatred toward the Jews, consigning them to an inferior status as that they will not enter heaven, but Christians can.
And you post a link that displays the swastika and will not delete it per my request to you.
The harm that could come to readers from here could be prevented by taking action, rather than refraining from action. And readers are led by your TOS to expect that they will be protected. By you luring members to think that, but then say that you will not act on defamatory statements or anti-Semitic statements unless there is escalation, could lead a subset of readers to think that you desire harm to happen to readers here by deceiving readers to believe that you will abide by your word in your FAQ/TOS to sanction what could lead one to feel accused or put down, when you turn a blind eye to hate posted here. They have a reasonable basis to think that because your TOS/FAQ says that in your enforcement section.
The natural consequences that come from defamation can inflict serious emotional/psychological harm to even the strongest victims here that you allow them to be debased by allowing defamation to stand were those statements are originally posted. For you also say that if a statement is not sanctioned, it is not against your rules. To lead people to think that they will be protected and then find out that you are not keeping your word in your TOS IMHO ,is a terrible, is a terrible, is a terrible thing to do.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 23:56:47
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-taribul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2014, at 9:47:00
> You also list how you will enforce those rules and how one can alert you to posts through your notification system. That all can give readers an expectation of security
I think there is in fact a measure of security here. But the idea is no longer to try to make this a refuge. Though I still do plan to add a Refuge board.
> But that expectation , now, could lead them falsely into a community that is not going to uphold those terms of service for you now state that you can turn a blind eye to much and allow defamation to be posted and those readers do not know that. They do not know that because your TOS states otherwise.
I wouldn't say the FAQ states otherwise. Where exactly do you think it does?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 23, 2014, at 6:26:17
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 23:56:47
> > You also list how you will enforce those rules and how one can alert you to posts through your notification system. That all can give readers an expectation of security
>
> I think there is in fact a measure of security here. But the idea is no longer to try to make this a refuge. Though I still do plan to add a Refuge board.
>
> > But that expectation , now, could lead them falsely into a community that is not going to uphold those terms of service for you now state that you can turn a blind eye to much and allow defamation to be posted and those readers do not know that. They do not know that because your TOS states otherwise.
>
> I wouldn't say the FAQ states otherwise. Where exactly do you think it does?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Where exactly do you think it does?...(that the FAQ states that you will not turn a blind eye to what could harm one here such as statements that put down or accuse or insult one's faith as per your TOS in your FAQ}
There are many aspects after reading your TOS/FAQ that could lead members to believe that you will not allow defamation or anti-Semitism to be seen as civil here and supportive.
The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you or your deputies of record. Otherwise, what is supportive could not be understood if un supportive statements were not sanctioned so that there was a differentiating of what is supportive and what is not supportive. This fact in your TOS/FAQ is still the same. If you wanted members to know that you will use discrimination as a tool to allow what is unsupportive, that could be made plain to readers and that is not stated in your TOS/FAQ. So members have an expectation of security that they will not be subjected to ridicule and debasement and humiliation and other forms of defamation on the basis that your goal is for support, and rational readers could think that defamation posted against one here is not supportive on the basis that you define what is not supportive as posting sarcasm, and statements that put down or accuse or put down another's faith and such, for support is the holding up to what the forum stands for, which is to help, not to harm, and defamation can harm. You even go further and state that support takes precedence, which a subset of readers could think rules out excuses for posting what could put down or accuse and such. And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules. That could have readers understand what is or is not supportive here. Granted, you use discrimination as a tool to allow anti-Semitism to flourish here, but that shows something else. Granted, you post what displays the swastika, but that is something else in regard to that a subset of readers could think that you were negligent in posting the link with the swastika, but you will not remove it which speaks to something much worse.
Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will. The fact that you say that you will use discrimination against me in regards that a subset of readers could think that you are making me the only exception to your own policy, which is part of your TOS. I am treated differently and subjected to you using a blind eye by denying me the same terms and conditions as other members which prevents me from using the notification system to stop defamation and anti-Semitism here from being seen as civil by you. You say that it will be good for you and the community as a whole for you to not respond to me. To use {what will be good for the community as a whole}comes from European fascism and legitimizes genocide, slavery and discrimination which are all abuses of power, in the minds of those that use that type of thinking. Unless you can see into the future, I do not think that you could make such a claim that what you do in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. and I do not know of any community that allows anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive, to be good. You name one if you know. And the historical record shows what happened to those that trusted those that said to trust them in that.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 23, 2014, at 9:31:00
In reply to Lou's respons-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-discrm » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 23, 2014, at 6:26:17
> > > You also list how you will enforce those rules and how one can alert you to posts through your notification system. That all can give readers an expectation of security
> >
> > I think there is in fact a measure of security here. But the idea is no longer to try to make this a refuge. Though I still do plan to add a Refuge board.
> >
> > > But that expectation , now, could lead them falsely into a community that is not going to uphold those terms of service for you now state that you can turn a blind eye to much and allow defamation to be posted and those readers do not know that. They do not know that because your TOS states otherwise.
> >
> > I wouldn't say the FAQ states otherwise. Where exactly do you think it does?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...Where exactly do you think it does?...(that the FAQ states that you will not turn a blind eye to what could harm one here such as statements that put down or accuse or insult one's faith as per your TOS in your FAQ}
> There are many aspects after reading your TOS/FAQ that could lead members to believe that you will not allow defamation or anti-Semitism to be seen as civil here and supportive.
> The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you or your deputies of record. Otherwise, what is supportive could not be understood if un supportive statements were not sanctioned so that there was a differentiating of what is supportive and what is not supportive. This fact in your TOS/FAQ is still the same. If you wanted members to know that you will use discrimination as a tool to allow what is unsupportive, that could be made plain to readers and that is not stated in your TOS/FAQ. So members have an expectation of security that they will not be subjected to ridicule and debasement and humiliation and other forms of defamation on the basis that your goal is for support, and rational readers could think that defamation posted against one here is not supportive on the basis that you define what is not supportive as posting sarcasm, and statements that put down or accuse or put down another's faith and such, for support is the holding up to what the forum stands for, which is to help, not to harm, and defamation can harm. You even go further and state that support takes precedence, which a subset of readers could think rules out excuses for posting what could put down or accuse and such. And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules. That could have readers understand what is or is not supportive here. Granted, you use discrimination as a tool to allow anti-Semitism to flourish here, but that shows something else. Granted, you post what displays the swastika, but that is something else in regard to that a subset of readers could think that you were negligent in posting the link with the swastika, but you will not remove it which speaks to something much worse.
> Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will. The fact that you say that you will use discrimination against me in regards that a subset of readers could think that you are making me the only exception to your own policy, which is part of your TOS. I am treated differently and subjected to you using a blind eye by denying me the same terms and conditions as other members which prevents me from using the notification system to stop defamation and anti-Semitism here from being seen as civil by you. You say that it will be good for you and the community as a whole for you to not respond to me. To use {what will be good for the community as a whole}comes from European fascism and legitimizes genocide, slavery and discrimination which are all abuses of power, in the minds of those that use that type of thinking. Unless you can see into the future, I do not think that you could make such a claim that what you do in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. and I do not know of any community that allows anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive, to be good. You name one if you know. And the historical record shows what happened to those that trusted those that said to trust them in that.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Another aspect of your TOS/FAQ that leads members here to think that they will be protected your rules, and that you will not practices selective enforcement of those rules of yours, which could be considered to be discrimination, is that not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
There are many variations of that, and in Judaism the overriding theme concerning that concept, is written in many parts of the scriptures that the Jews use. One passage says:
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of you citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
The paramount meaning here is that of equality, which shows an abhorrence to discrimination. And other faiths say to treat your neighbor as yourself.
Now for that to be the mission of this forum laid out by you in your TOS/FAQ, reasonable readers could think that you mean that, and will not pervert the mission of the forum by using selective enforcement of your rules which can be discriminatory, to allow hatred toward the Jews to be promulgated here by turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic statements, leaving them to be seen as supportive by you where they are originally posted. And also, defamation posted here toward another allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted, contradicts your own mission as can be understood by a subset of readers that take you at your word that your mission includes the golden rule.
Now if you want to use selective enforcement of your rules to allow hatred toward the Jews to stand here, and defamation toward me to stand here, I say to you that as subset of reasonable readers could consider your mission to be a lie.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 1:15:42
In reply to Lou's reply--The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-mission, posted by Lou Pilder on July 23, 2014, at 9:31:00
> The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you
I agree. But it doesn't say every single unsupportive statement will be repudiated.
> And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
Where do I state that?
> Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will.
Where do I state that?
> not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
That's actually a great point. I'd like to be corrected little by others, so I'm correcting others little. :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 6:43:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 1:15:42
> > The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you
>
> I agree. But it doesn't say every single unsupportive statement will be repudiated.
>
> > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
>
> Where do I state that?
>
> > Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will.
>
> Where do I state that?
>
> > not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
>
> That's actually a great point. I'd like to be corrected little by others, so I'm correcting others little. :-)
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You asked where it says about notifications to you.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1056222.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 6:47:34
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-knowtiphy » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 6:43:06
> > > The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you
> >
> > I agree. But it doesn't say every single unsupportive statement will be repudiated.
> >
> > > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
> >
> > Where do I state that?
> >
> > > Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will.
> >
> > Where do I state that?
> >
> > > not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
> >
> > That's actually a great point. I'd like to be corrected little by others, so I'm correcting others little. :-)
> >
> > Bob
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You asked where it says about notifications to you.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1056222.html
>
>
corrected:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 8:24:02
In reply to correction--The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 6:47:34
> > You asked where it says about notifications to you.
> >
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html1. That's not the FAQ.
2. That clarifies that I won't act on all notifications.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 9:22:32
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 8:24:02
> > > You asked where it says about notifications to you.
> > >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
>
> 1. That's not the FAQ.
>
> 2. That clarifies that I won't act on all notifications.
>
> Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
What the post clarifies is what a reasonable reader could think if what it does or does not clarify. In this case, you state that you {will} respond to the notifications which could lead those that understand your grammatical structure by your use of {will}, to mean that you will, not that you might act. The difference is paramount to what is in discussion now. That is, what are readers led to believe here as to if they will not be subjected to defamation and anti-Semitic promulgation. In this case, your notification system is in your FAQ, and is even explained as to your formula for processing notifications. That leads to readers having an expectation of safety from the harm that defamation and anti-Semitic statements un sanctioned could inflict upon readers. The fact that you say that you {will} respond to notifications gives that security to readers. If that was not the case, you could have posted in your FAQ that you will not respond to notifications, but you have not posted any such thing there. And to make matters more clear, you state that my notifications are the only exception to your own policy. If you wanted to say that others could be excepted, you could have done so, but you did not. Readers could take you at your word and believe that they have an expectation of having their notifications responded to according to your FAQ which states how you do that. As long as your TOS in your FAQ reads as it is, a subset of readers could think that there is really no change, but there is the obvious use of the abuse of power of using discrimination in the administration of your own policy. If you wanted to have readers know that you could use selective enforcement, which can constitute discrimination, you could post something so that readers could know that in your FAQ it is evident. Something like:
READERS BE AWARE
If you are led to believe that because I have policies here to prevent you from being harmed by defamation and hate posted against you, on the basis that I have said that this site's mission is for support and that I use the Golden Rule in my thinking, do not take me at my word. For I will select what defamation will be allowed to be seen as civil here and leave other defamation to stand as civil where the defamation is originally posted. This could also mean that your faith could be seen as being put down and insulted. This does not mean that I am a bad person, because I do what in my thinking what will be good for me and this community as whole, which replaces your mental-health well-being. This may mean that you could suffer the effects of abuse by defamation posted against you and even your faith may be put down and insulted and I might not protect you from that harm by posting a sanction to what could lead you to have feelings of unworthiness, which psychiatrists know could cause or exacerbate depression. So those of you that are seeking a forum for support and follow the Golden Rule, be advised that I can select what could be seen as civil here and could foster what could precipitate your death by suicide. Also, hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could be allowed to be seen as civil here, which could lead you to have feelings of being degraded as an inferior human being and cause you to be drawn down into a vortex of depression and kill yourself.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 10:25:23
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 1:15:42
> > The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you
>
> I agree. But it doesn't say every single unsupportive statement will be repudiated.
>
> > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
>
> Where do I state that?
>
> > Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will.
>
> Where do I state that?
>
> > not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
>
> That's actually a great point. I'd like to be corrected little by others, so I'm correcting others little. :-)
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wanted to know where it says that if a statement is un sanctioned, it is not against your rules. Here is the post where I think that reasonable readers could see that you agree.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 19:16:47
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 10:25:23
> > > The first and overriding part of your TOS is that you state that the goal here is for support. Rational readers could understand that you mean that unsupportive statements will be repudiated by you
> >
> > I agree. But it doesn't say every single unsupportive statement will be repudiated.
> >
> > > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
> >
> > Where do I state that?
> >
> > > Another aspect of the issue here is that you state that notifying the administration gets a post to you and your deputies. This gives an expectation that you will act on the notification, and in fact, you state that you will.
> >
> > Where do I state that?
> >
> > > not only is your opening remarks for what is civil by you that your mission is for support and education, but you also write that the mission here is to exemplify {The Golden Rule}.
> >
> > That's actually a great point. I'd like to be corrected little by others, so I'm correcting others little. :-)
> >
> > Bob
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wanted to know where it says that if a statement is un sanctioned, it is not against your rules. Here is the post where I think that reasonable readers could see that you agree.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
You asked where it could be in you TOS/FAQ that leads readers to the fact that using the notification button gets to you and your deputies.
The factual statement is in your {enforce} section of your TOS/FAQ that says:
[...If you want to make sure I know about a post, use the "notify administrators" button below the post...].
That expectation that the readers have reinforces the mission of the forum, to be supportive. And since you state that by using that feature here, you will be sure that you know about it, that can lead a subset of readers to think that it is a lie if you say that you do not know about the notifications sent to you. They have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you say that by a member using the notification feature, it is sure that you know about it, as your TOS/FAQ states. If you wanted readers to think that by them using the notification feature that you would {maybe} know about it, the word {sure} would not have been used in your TOS/FAQ. Granted, you could be negligent and even though you knew about what was in the notification, you forgot about it. But forgetting has consequences. And I do not want to be a victim of anti-Semitic violence or want readers to kill themselves, or Jewish readers to feel put down or accused and be made to feel inferior to other human beings because of your negligence because you forgot to act on what was in the notification. But be it as it may be, there could be other reasons that you have that caused you to not act on a notification. And the hand of justice is stayed here to give you an opportunity to sway the readers here that you have an excuse to not respond to notifications, even though your TOS states that you are sure to know about it when one uses the notification feature here. After all, you do say in your TOS/FAQ that you know it when you see it, or not until I see it can I know it.
Your TOS in this respect provides an expectation to readers that you will know of defamation against them, or if their faith is being insulted, posted if they use the notification feature of yours. And later you reinforce the idea that you will act on the notifications, except for some of mine. If that is not true, then a subset of readers could feel deceived by you, and feel that you have not disclosed that they could become a victim of defamation or racial hatred by you allowing defamation and anti-Semitism to stand without sanction where they are originally posted. They have a rational basis for thinking that on the grounds that you state that to be sure that you know about it, use the notification button below the post. And to hide any fact that you really do not intend to honor your own terms of service, could nullify the credibility of your mission here for the forum, for if you allow defamation and anti-Semitism to be seen as not against your rules, the concept of support can become distorted and the forum perverted so as those readers could think that what is being supported is hate.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2014, at 4:26:19
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 10:25:23
> > > > You asked where it says about notifications to you.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
> >
> > 2. That clarifies that I won't act on all notifications.
>
> What the post clarifies is what a reasonable reader could think if what it does or does not clarify. In this case, you state that you {will} respond to the notificationsI said "will" in 2006, but not in 2013.
--
> > > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.htmlI stated that if it's brought to my attention and I let it stand, it's not against my rules. But maybe I should revise that. Since I might consider it uncivil, yet decide not to sanction it.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 26, 2014, at 6:01:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2014, at 4:26:19
> > > > > You asked where it says about notifications to you.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
> > >
> > > 2. That clarifies that I won't act on all notifications.
> >
> > What the post clarifies is what a reasonable reader could think if what it does or does not clarify. In this case, you state that you {will} respond to the notifications
>
> I said "will" in 2006, but not in 2013.
>
> --
>
> > > > And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> I stated that if it's brought to my attention and I let it stand, it's not against my rules. But maybe I should revise that. Since I might consider it uncivil, yet decide not to sanction it.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I said "will" in 2006, but not in 2013...].
Let us look at what you said in 2013 and see if you have posted a lie or not here.
In 2013, you wrote;
[...When I am notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the poster who notified me. One exception is...to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
A subset of readers could think that what you posted here now about what you posted in 2013 is a lie. They have a rational basis to think that because you say that what you posted in 2013 does not constitute that you {will} respond to notifications. But looking at what you did post in 2013, we see two entities:
1. When I am notified of posts, I {am} enforcing existing rules.
2. One exception it to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
But more can be deduced from the facts that you wrote. These facts deduced from what you wrote could be:
A. You did not deny that you are enforcing rules when notified in 2013. In fact, you said that, "I am enforcing existing rules."
B. Some of Lou's notifications you will leave outstanding
C. No other notifications are said by you that you will also leave those outstanding, but just some of Lou's.
D. Some of Lou's notifications that are outstanding pre-date 2013
E. The existing rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused and also not to post anything that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
F. Statements that insult Judaism in particular but not limited to, are showing unsanctioned before 2013.
G. Statements that defame Lou are showing unsanctioned that were posted before 2013.
H. A reasonable conclusion unless you post here differently, is that by readers seeing what you posted here, anti-Semitic statements that you are notified about that remain unsanctioned will be good for you and the community as a whole, on the basis that you also posted in your 2013 post that it would be good for you and the community as a whole at that time to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding. This is further ratified by the fact that you state that if one wants to be sure that you know about a post, to use the notification feature. The fact that my reminders are posted, that could lead readers to think that there are outstanding notifications from me, and that I would want anti-Semitism sanctioned by you here on the basis that it can be seen that I am challenging your selective enforcement, which could be deemed as fascist discrimination, here of posts that could arouse antisemitic feelings and hatred toward the Jews and want them sanctioned by you. For it could be seen that I do not consider hate to be allowed to be seen as civil by you where the post is originally posted, to be good for this community as a whole. And since you write that I am the exception, others could think that you {will} enforce existing rules even after 2103 and that if you say that what you wrote in 2013 says that you might not, those readers could think that is a lie.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 29, 2014, at 9:14:20
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,
You now state here that you had an excuse for allowing the defamation posted about me here to remain unsanctioned as you say that it is archived now. Your excuse for allowing the defamation to remain un repudiated by you while it could be seen before it was archived is that:
[..No one (except maybe you} notified me of it..]
Let us see if a reasonable reader could think that what you wrote is a lie or not. In order to understand what you posted here about the archives and notifications, let us look at your TOS/FAQ here.
Your FAQ states something like that you say that {If you miss a post} and it is archived, you may not address it there. So if you are saying that you missed the post in question here, that is the false statement that I am a disturbed person which could decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held and can induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings about me, a subset of readers could think that your statement that you missed the statement is a lie. They could have a rational basis to think that because the statement is in discussion on the board between us. You have not used a specific meaning for what {missed} means, so we go by the context as seen. And it is plainly visible that we are in discussion concerning the statement. You then go even further and state your excuse for not sanctioning the post by saying:
[..No one (except maybe you) notified me of it)..]
Your clause {except maybe you) could be thought by a subset of readers as suspect to deception being used by you here to persuade readers that you did not know if you did or did not receive a notification from me concerning the libel used here about my character that you allow to be seen as civil where it is originally posted. They could have a rational basis to think that because you use the word {maybe}, which could be thought by these readers to mean that you want readers to think that you may not have received a notification by me concerning this post in question. But those readers could know that your TOS/FAQ states that if one wants to be *sure* that you know of a post to use the notification feature to you. And this now brings up the crux of this issue. For if the notification was sent by me, then your TOS says that you will be sure to know it. But you write here, {except *maybe* you} which could imply to readers that you do not know one way or the other if you did or did not receive a notification from me concerning that post.
For readers to conclude that it is or is not a lie that you have an excuse to leave the defamation to be seen as civil in the post where it is originally posted, by invoking that you have a self-made rule to allow you to leave defamation unsanctioned if there was not a notification sent to you concerning that post, could be settled by you here now by you posting that you did or did not have a notification from me concerning that statement as can be seen in your secret archives of notifications. I am asking for you to now post:
A. If you do or do not have a notification from me concerning the statement in question
B. If you are willing to turn over your archive of notifications to an impartial body for discovery
C. Why you posted what you did here {except maybe you}, if you would not have sanctioned the statement anyway even if there is the notification from me on the grounds that you state that you will use the discriminatory policy to act on notifications except for some of Lou's.
D. What the good is by you leaving the defamation against me to be seen as civil in the post where it is posted originally, since your thinking is that what you do will be good for this community as a whole, and for readers to trust you at that.
E. Why do you want readers to trust you in what you do in your thinking here if defamation is allowed to be seen as civil where it is originally posted if your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Bryte on August 2, 2014, at 17:17:10
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2014, at 4:26:19
What nonsense. What a big bully. Hsiung says he recognizes Pilder's long standing concern about a particular post to be symptomatic of anxiety. The post serves no purpose to anybody - other than as an icon to Hsiung in his personal psychodrama to prove to his audience that he can have his way. Hsiung could easily resolve the situation by deleting the old post. Instead, he chooses to visit the matter day after day, engaging Pilder in tedious administrative dialogue that - by Hsiung's definition of his role here - is intended neither as support, education or therapy.
This is like a person with their radio turned up too loud. They may know it annoys others, but that local enforcement agencies will do nothing about the marginal annoyance. Rather than do the neighborly thing and turn down the radio, the bully acts as if his privilege of blasting his own sound trumps another person's right, need or desire for reasonably serene repose.
And so, year after year, Hsiung continues to defend his arbitrary choice as if it somehow matters to anything other than his own construct of who he is - an alpha dog with a terminal degree and an exclusive license.
He has implied that yielding to Pilders' simple request would leave him vulnerable to future requests that he remove content from his self-styled publication. So what? He has time and again been arbitrary and capricious in how he applies policy, each time arguing that his administration is systematic and judicious, then as often as not retreating from one hastily constructed argument to the safety of a newly constructed - equally arbitrary -- argument as defense for his arbitrary, capricious experimentation ... experimentation he conducts outside the protective context of any professional community that could provide a check-and-balance to or second opinion of his self-directed conduct.
Just do the humane thing, Robert. If you know this particular post causes this particular poster anxiety, delete it. Why rub his nose in your refusal day after day when it is your apparent opinion he is incapable of not returning to the matter because you believe he suffers from an anxiety that repeatedly draws him to this matter? So what if it means others might some day ask you to delete something? Maybe you should. To refuse with the tenacity, persistence and extreme attention to process you demonstrate suggests a possible psychopathology on your part - some sort of obsessive-compulsive, borderline narcissistic personality disorder.
Your little Web site and your little self-made rules are not nearly as important to the world as you seem to believe, and a trained, licensed psychiatric doctor should well understand that these some of these anxiety-inducing stimuli you insist on preserving in the attractive nuisance you call Psychobabble are harmful. Do no harm. Dammit. Heal thyself, physician. Grow up. Delete the damned post and move on.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2014, at 7:48:12
In reply to Big Bully » Dr. Bob, posted by Bryte on August 2, 2014, at 17:17:10
> What nonsense. What a big bully. Hsiung says he recognizes Pilder's long standing concern about a particular post to be symptomatic of anxiety. The post serves no purpose to anybody - other than as an icon to Hsiung in his personal psychodrama to prove to his audience that he can have his way. Hsiung could easily resolve the situation by deleting the old post. Instead, he chooses to visit the matter day after day, engaging Pilder in tedious administrative dialogue that - by Hsiung's definition of his role here - is intended neither as support, education or therapy.
>
> This is like a person with their radio turned up too loud. They may know it annoys others, but that local enforcement agencies will do nothing about the marginal annoyance. Rather than do the neighborly thing and turn down the radio, the bully acts as if his privilege of blasting his own sound trumps another person's right, need or desire for reasonably serene repose.
>
> And so, year after year, Hsiung continues to defend his arbitrary choice as if it somehow matters to anything other than his own construct of who he is - an alpha dog with a terminal degree and an exclusive license.
>
> He has implied that yielding to Pilders' simple request would leave him vulnerable to future requests that he remove content from his self-styled publication. So what? He has time and again been arbitrary and capricious in how he applies policy, each time arguing that his administration is systematic and judicious, then as often as not retreating from one hastily constructed argument to the safety of a newly constructed - equally arbitrary -- argument as defense for his arbitrary, capricious experimentation ... experimentation he conducts outside the protective context of any professional community that could provide a check-and-balance to or second opinion of his self-directed conduct.
>
> Just do the humane thing, Robert. If you know this particular post causes this particular poster anxiety, delete it. Why rub his nose in your refusal day after day when it is your apparent opinion he is incapable of not returning to the matter because you believe he suffers from an anxiety that repeatedly draws him to this matter? So what if it means others might some day ask you to delete something? Maybe you should. To refuse with the tenacity, persistence and extreme attention to process you demonstrate suggests a possible psychopathology on your part - some sort of obsessive-compulsive, borderline narcissistic personality disorder.
>
> Your little Web site and your little self-made rules are not nearly as important to the world as you seem to believe, and a trained, licensed psychiatric doctor should well understand that these some of these anxiety-inducing stimuli you insist on preserving in the attractive nuisance you call Psychobabble are harmful. Do no harm. Dammit. Heal thyself, physician. Grow up. Delete the damned post and move on.Bryte,
I got the news today, Oh boy. It is refreshing to see that at least one other person has followed this ongoing issue here between me and Mr. Hsiung and will post their objections to the statement(s) being allowed to stand.
Your post can bring out many of the serious issues involved in allowing anti-Semitism and defamation to be seen as civil where it is originally posted. This can confuse and distort the mission of the forum IMHO to lead to deaths.
I was wondering what the post(s) are that you are referring to that can be seen as civil that I am objecting to. At this point, I think that it will be good for this community as a whole to not delete them, but to post a repudiation to them where they are originally posted by Mr. Hsiung.
If you could post some of the links here of the posts that are seen as civil, I could post a response here.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:22:56
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-truzme » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 29, 2014, at 9:14:20
> D. Some of Lou's notifications that are outstanding pre-date 2013
> F. Statements that insult Judaism in particular but not limited to, are showing unsanctioned before 2013.
> G. Statements that defame Lou are showing unsanctioned that were posted before 2013.I didn't mean to imply that my policy didn't change until 2013. It had been evolving before that, but I may not have made it explicit until then.
--
> A. If you do or do not have a notification from me concerning the statement in question
OK, I looked, and in fact I do.
> B. If you are willing to turn over your archive of notifications to an impartial body for discovery
No.
> C. Why you posted what you did here {except maybe you}, if you would not have sanctioned the statement anyway even if there is the notification from me on the grounds that you state that you will use the discriminatory policy to act on notifications except for some of Lou's.
Sorry, could you repeat your question?
> D. What the good is by you leaving the defamation against me to be seen as civil in the post where it is posted originally, since your thinking is that what you do will be good for this community as a whole, and for readers to trust you at that.
1. Not sanctioning it could lead to it being seen as civil, but not necessarily.
2. The good I see is that intervening less = trusting the community, including yourself, more.
> E. Why do you want readers to trust you in what you do in your thinking here if defamation is allowed to be seen as civil where it is originally posted if your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down?
If they trust me, (1) there may be less conflict here and (2) they may be more able to trust others.
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.