![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 608 to 632 of 795. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 11:01:17
In reply to Big Bully » Dr. Bob, posted by Bryte on August 2, 2014, at 17:17:10
> Hsiung says he recognizes Pilder's long standing concern about a particular post to be symptomatic of anxiety. ... Hsiung could easily resolve the situation by deleting the old post.
True, but it isn't always an option to remove what triggers anxiety.
> This is like a person with their radio turned up too loud. They may know it annoys others, but ... 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.
Are you saying you feel annoyed by my not deleting that post? Or by my continuing to engage with Lou? Yes, those privileges of mine trump your desire for serenity. Which may also annoy you.
> 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.
There's something to be said for one defending one's construct of who one is. Which I assume you're doing here yourself.
> 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
What's arbitrary for the goose may be flexible for the gander.
Bob
Posted by Bryte on August 3, 2014, at 12:07:36
In reply to Lou's response-gudsumair » Bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2014, at 7:48:12
> 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.
> LouI might not have followed this discourse as closely as it might appear to some. In particular, I am not certain at this moment exactly which posts are seen as civil by whom at what time and also are the subject of your ongoing concerns, Lou. Rather, I cite those posts as a group of postings about which you are concerned, and believe your concerns are reasonably particular about what comprises membership in that group. I mention them by reference - the one, or ones, about which you have concerns.
Whether Hsiung should delete them or repudiate them is beyond the scope of my analysis. My perception was that you sought deletion -- but as I said, I'm not following that closely. Repudiation -- or asserting in the proximate context of those messages that they do not meet his measure of civility -- was more likely typical of his standard response to messages of that type at the time there were first posted. A courteous response on his part would be to accommodate your concerns if they are reasonable, even if your reasoning is not the same as his.
If he does not want you to tell him what to do -- which appears to be a very important concern for him -- one option would be for him to model behaviors that affect compliance without demanding that others comply. At least at the general time of some of the posts you refer, his style was to model strict compliance demands. His style at that time was to tell people "Please be civil (as I define civil) or else." Another option he might or might not have tried would have been to say "I do not see that statement as civil." He could then engage those who might disagree with him in a endless Hegelian dialectic as he appears to be doing in this thread.
Posted by Bryte on August 3, 2014, at 12:30:54
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 11:01:17
> True, but it isn't always an option to remove what triggers anxiety.
Which is a good reason for you to address those things you can change, and have the wisdom to know the difference acting as a group a therapist and providing a safe environment that does not needlessly introduce cognitive dissonance.
> Are you saying you feel annoyed by my not deleting that post? Or by my continuing to engage with Lou? Yes, those privileges of mine trump your desire for serenity. Which may also annoy you.
>No, I am recognizing that you said they appear to cause anxiety for Lou. For me, it is about as amusing as watching a bull fight. Do you want me amuse myself by watching a sport in which sentient beings are caused pain then attracted to repeatedly mount attacks on the source of their pain, only to have their effort to confront the source of pain frustrated?
> There's something to be said for one defending one's construct of who one is. Which I assume you're doing here yourself.
Thank you for the compliment.
> What's arbitrary for the goose may be flexible for the gander.
>
> BobOr what's flexible for the goose may be arbitrary for the gander. Or either or both the goose and the gander might have gender identity disorders. Or maybe there are many ganders and one goose. Or maybe the goose has decided to avoid the influence of a flock in favor of arbitrating his individual behavior and that of whatever geese eh may attract to his nest, regardless any benefit to be found in the greater flock. Or maybe there are no geese and no ganders in this discussion.
Maybe you are simply reluctant to acknowledge wholeheartedly and consistently that individually taking responsibility for a novel rule set among a open and undefined group that you assembled before such groups facilitated by emerging technologies were described as "social networks" assembled in "clouds" eventually exceeded even the capacity of your exemplary and brilliantly reticent mind.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2014, at 20:04:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response-gudsumair » Lou Pilder, posted by Bryte on August 3, 2014, at 12:07:36
> > 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
>
> I might not have followed this discourse as closely as it might appear to some. In particular, I am not certain at this moment exactly which posts are seen as civil by whom at what time and also are the subject of your ongoing concerns, Lou. Rather, I cite those posts as a group of postings about which you are concerned, and believe your concerns are reasonably particular about what comprises membership in that group. I mention them by reference - the one, or ones, about which you have concerns.
>
> Whether Hsiung should delete them or repudiate them is beyond the scope of my analysis. My perception was that you sought deletion -- but as I said, I'm not following that closely. Repudiation -- or asserting in the proximate context of those messages that they do not meet his measure of civility -- was more likely typical of his standard response to messages of that type at the time there were first posted. A courteous response on his part would be to accommodate your concerns if they are reasonable, even if your reasoning is not the same as his.
>
> If he does not want you to tell him what to do -- which appears to be a very important concern for him -- one option would be for him to model behaviors that affect compliance without demanding that others comply. At least at the general time of some of the posts you refer, his style was to model strict compliance demands. His style at that time was to tell people "Please be civil (as I define civil) or else." Another option he might or might not have tried would have been to say "I do not see that statement as civil." He could then engage those who might disagree with him in a endless Hegelian dialectic as he appears to be doing in this thread.
>
> Bryte,
You wrote,[...another option he might..have tried would have been to say, "I do not see that statement as civil."...].
The statements that I want purged could be done so by him doing just that. And then readers could know that the statement is not validated by him and his deputies of record. But because the statements in question could be seen in the post where they are originally posted to stand un repudiated, readers could think that they are civil and will be good for this community as a whole, for Mr. Hsiung states that posters are to be civil at all times. But it us much more than that. For Mr. Hsiung states that statements that accuse or put down could cause harm because he states that he is sorry if one is hurt by those type of statements when he posts his sanctions to them.
Then since he says that he is doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole, a subset of readers could think that harm is what is the good that will come from ignoring the defamation or anti-Semitism. They could have a rational basis to think that because Mr. Hsiung says that his philosophy is to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence which could mean that there is not an excuse to allow what could cause hurt to someone here by the nature of un repudiated statements that put down or accuse another or lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
By Mr. Hsiung using what he calls selective enforcement, which others could call discrimination, in applying his rules here, his claim that he tries to be fair could be thought by a subset of readers to be a lie on the basis that they could think that {fair} would be to abide by the rules for all statements that put down and/or accuse another or lead one to feel that their faith is being put down. His TOS states that he wants to be fair and that could mislead readers because the TOS has not been changed to say that he does not want to be fair and then there becomes that a subset of readers could feel deceived in what is known as a {failure to disclose} aspect that could result IMHO in a reader's suicide or them killing others. This is because that they could think that what is un sanctioned is civil and supportive on the basis that since Mr Hsiung states that he tries to operate in fairness, that they are on a fair playing field and feel safe from harm cause by un repudiated defamation and the allowing of statements that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down. If someone is led to believe that they are on a level playing field, they could feel betrayed when they find out that the field is tilted and perverted to allow hate to be seen as civil.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2014, at 7:24:56
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:22:56
> > 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
Mr. Hsiung,
Note my objection to you attempting to justify leaving anti-Semitic statement and statements that defame me to be seen as civil where they are originally posted by what you posted to me here.
There could be Jews and myself being victims of anti-Semitic violence as seeing anti-Semitism allowed to be seen as civil by a psychiatrist that has rules not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down. To allow statements for that could arouse hatred toward the Jews is not justified by your TOS and the potential harm from defamation is not stopped because you use discrimination in applying your rules here as your TOS states that you want to be fair. Fair means to this reader t mean that the rules will be applied equally. As long as my notifications to you remain outstanding a subset of readers could think that your reply to me here is a lie. They have a rational basis to think that because you say that being supportive takes precedence, which could mean that there is not a excuse to allow what could arouse hatred toward the Jews and defamation toward me to be seen as civil where posted originally.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2014, at 9:26:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response-gudsumair » Lou Pilder, posted by Bryte on August 3, 2014, at 12:07:36
> > 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
>
> I might not have followed this discourse as closely as it might appear to some. In particular, I am not certain at this moment exactly which posts are seen as civil by whom at what time and also are the subject of your ongoing concerns, Lou. Rather, I cite those posts as a group of postings about which you are concerned, and believe your concerns are reasonably particular about what comprises membership in that group. I mention them by reference - the one, or ones, about which you have concerns.
>
> Whether Hsiung should delete them or repudiate them is beyond the scope of my analysis. My perception was that you sought deletion -- but as I said, I'm not following that closely. Repudiation -- or asserting in the proximate context of those messages that they do not meet his measure of civility -- was more likely typical of his standard response to messages of that type at the time there were first posted. A courteous response on his part would be to accommodate your concerns if they are reasonable, even if your reasoning is not the same as his.
>
> If he does not want you to tell him what to do -- which appears to be a very important concern for him -- one option would be for him to model behaviors that affect compliance without demanding that others comply. At least at the general time of some of the posts you refer, his style was to model strict compliance demands. His style at that time was to tell people "Please be civil (as I define civil) or else." Another option he might or might not have tried would have been to say "I do not see that statement as civil." He could then engage those who might disagree with him in a endless Hegelian dialectic as he appears to be doing in this thread.
>
> Bryte,
You wrote,[...I am not certain which posts...].
Here is a post by me with some of the statements in question for your review.
Lou
To see this post,
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[ admin, 1046351 ]
Look for the 1046351 in the colored strip URL, not in the subject line...
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 0:01:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Bryte on August 3, 2014, at 12:30:54
> > Are you saying you feel annoyed by my not deleting that post? Or by my continuing to engage with Lou? Yes, those privileges of mine trump your desire for serenity. Which may also annoy you.
>
> No ... For me, it is about as amusing as watching a bull fight. Do you want me amuse myself by watching a sport in which sentient beings are caused pain then attracted to repeatedly mount attacks on the source of their pain, only to have their effort to confront the source of pain frustrated?Are you saying you don't feel annoyed, but amused?
> Maybe you are simply reluctant to acknowledge wholeheartedly and consistently that individually taking responsibility for a novel rule set among a open and undefined group that you assembled ... eventually exceeded even the capacity of your exemplary and brilliantly reticent mind.
I've always been comfortable taking responsibility for the rules. Enforcing them did exceed my capacity when the boards were at their most active. It's within my capacity now. The shift in policy is because of a shift in philosophy. I'm comfortable taking responsibility for the policies, too.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 0:11:51
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pild discussion-pleezbepsyvl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2014, at 7:24:56
> Note my objection
Noted.
> There could be Jews and myself being victims of anti-Semitic violence as seeing anti-Semitism allowed to be seen as civil by a psychiatrist that has rules not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
Are you saying you're a victim of anti-Semitic violence here, or elsewhere, or both?
> your TOS states that you want to be fair. Fair means to this reader t mean that the rules will be applied equally.
That's a reasonable way to interpret "fair".
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 10:48:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 0:11:51
> > Note my objection
>
> Noted.
>
> > There could be Jews and myself being victims of anti-Semitic violence as seeing anti-Semitism allowed to be seen as civil by a psychiatrist that has rules not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
>
> Are you saying you're a victim of anti-Semitic violence here, or elsewhere, or both?
>
> > your TOS states that you want to be fair. Fair means to this reader t mean that the rules will be applied equally.
>
> That's a reasonable way to interpret "fair".
>
> BobMr. Hsiung
Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
So readers entering your site now could be deceived into thinking that there will be an equal treatment policy by you, based on your TOS that states that you have fairness implemented in your policies after reading your TOS/FAQ to protect them from defamation and from having their faith put down. But that in reality is not the case as they could see the years of my pleading to you to post a repudiation to the statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews nor will you retract your own tag lines that could create and/or develop for others to post defamation of the Jews. These readers could think that your excuses are pretexts to foster hatred toward the Jews by your using of what you call selective enforcement, but those readers could think that is another name for discrimination in the applying of your rules to allow hatred of the Jews to be fostered here by you. They could have a rational basis to think that because you have not changed your TOS/FAQ which states not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused.
Those subset of readers could think that deceit is used here on the basis that harm could come to someone from defamation and discrimination as is widely studied in the psychiatric/psychological research and for you to ignore that harm could come to those people that are victims of your selective enforcement to leave defamation and anti-Semitism un repudiated by you, as you admit by in your tag line to some of your sanctions that you are sorry if harm came to the victim of the defamation.
You and your deputies of record and anyone else you can get to be in concert with you here to allow hatred toward the Jews to stand un repudiated where they are originally posted, could take the responsibility for any injuries or deaths that could arise from your selective enforcement of your rules if that is what you mean by stating that you take responsibility for what you post on your own. And you state that replies come from all of you. (you and your deputies).
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-deepseet, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 10:48:55
> Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
> > Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
>
> In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
The issues here arise as a result of harm that could come to one here by defamation being allowed to stand by you.
This is different from what you posted here. The difference is that you can control what could be thought to be supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking by sanctioning defamation or not. Your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence which a reasonable reader could think that there is not an exception to allowing defamation to stand on the grounds that un sanctioned defamation could cause harm to the victim of it. It is the what you call selective enforcement which others could call discrimination that is at issue here as you combine the golden rule with "fairness" by you in your enforcement. Fairness means that enforcement is done equally as you admit is a reasonable understanding of the word. Selective enforcement could IMHO lead to a subset of readers here committing suicide. These could be the victims of un sanctioned defamation that could lead them to feel put down which could cause them to be drawn down into a vortex of depression and feelings of worthlessness and kill themselves. That is why a rule to not post what could lead one to feel put down or accused or have their faith being put down is a sound mental-health practice. To discriminate could lead those that are victims of discrimination potentially to their deaths either by their own hand or seeking drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist to come out of the depression caused by discrimination and be killed by the drugs or the drugs compel them to kill themselves or others also. This population is hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
As long as you leave your TOS as it is readers could expect safety by your rules being applied equally. If and when they find out that you do not apply your rules equally and allow anti-Semitism to stand where it is posted originally those readers could feel defrauded as they do not see any disclosure in your TOS/FAQ that you will not apply your rues equally. To many readers the equal protection of the law is an inalienable right and they could see that those in charge of enforcing rules are not following the Golden Rule if they discriminate in their enforcement of their rules. And in the case here they could see it as creating and developing hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitism and defamation can be seen as civil here where the statements are originally posted as that they could see that your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence and that there is not an excuse to allow those statements to stand un repudiated for if so it could be thought that you and your deputies of record are validating the hate.
The Golden rule is about equality. And Jefferson thought that the laws should be so that there is equal protection to all by the laws being applied equally.
For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2014, at 16:58:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ruzzul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
> > > Your TOS states that fairness on your part is part of your philosophy along with implementing the Golden Rule along with that. A subset of readers could now could think that you are using deceit to lure people to join this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the fact that you now state that you have shifted your thinking to allow unequal treatment, in particular but not limited to, that you give yourself the option of leaving uncivil statements un repudiated by you which in those readers thinking could constitute unfairness and an ignoring of the Golden Rule, and have not had that reflected by you changing your TOS/FAQ.
> >
> > In fact that's consistent with the Golden Rule, since sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
> >
> > Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The issues here arise as a result of harm that could come to one here by defamation being allowed to stand by you.
> This is different from what you posted here. The difference is that you can control what could be thought to be supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking by sanctioning defamation or not. Your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence which a reasonable reader could think that there is not an exception to allowing defamation to stand on the grounds that un sanctioned defamation could cause harm to the victim of it. It is the what you call selective enforcement which others could call discrimination that is at issue here as you combine the golden rule with "fairness" by you in your enforcement. Fairness means that enforcement is done equally as you admit is a reasonable understanding of the word. Selective enforcement could IMHO lead to a subset of readers here committing suicide. These could be the victims of un sanctioned defamation that could lead them to feel put down which could cause them to be drawn down into a vortex of depression and feelings of worthlessness and kill themselves. That is why a rule to not post what could lead one to feel put down or accused or have their faith being put down is a sound mental-health practice. To discriminate could lead those that are victims of discrimination potentially to their deaths either by their own hand or seeking drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist to come out of the depression caused by discrimination and be killed by the drugs or the drugs compel them to kill themselves or others also. This population is hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
> If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
> As long as you leave your TOS as it is readers could expect safety by your rules being applied equally. If and when they find out that you do not apply your rules equally and allow anti-Semitism to stand where it is posted originally those readers could feel defrauded as they do not see any disclosure in your TOS/FAQ that you will not apply your rues equally. To many readers the equal protection of the law is an inalienable right and they could see that those in charge of enforcing rules are not following the Golden Rule if they discriminate in their enforcement of their rules. And in the case here they could see it as creating and developing hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitism and defamation can be seen as civil here where the statements are originally posted as that they could see that your philosophy is that being supportive takes precedence and that there is not an excuse to allow those statements to stand un repudiated for if so it could be thought that you and your deputies of record are validating the hate.
> The Golden rule is about equality. And Jefferson thought that the laws should be so that there is equal protection to all by the laws being applied equally.
> For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Friends
Be not deceived. What is commonly known as he Golden Rule in one popular form has its written origin in the scriptures that the Jews use. And be advised that I am prevented from posting here what I need to in order for you to be educated in this subject by me. This is because of the prohibitions to me here from Mr. Hsiung which prevents me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me.
A commonly understood interpretation of the rule may not in reality be what the rule is about. This is because the rule has in it the depth of the teachings of Judaism, of which I am prevented by Mr. Hsiung to post here.
But as the rule is commonly understood, let us say that a masochist used the rule. The masochist has in their mind to have pain inflicted to them and so they could think that pain is what they could do to others for they would welcome pain inflicted upon them as the masochist does. This is a perversion of the rule, but do into others as you would want done to you could apply.
But it is much more than that. For the verse in question in the Hebrew scriptures is not an isolated verse. The entire set of books of the scriptures that the Jews use can be connected to the rule to define what the rule really means. I am prevented from educating readers here from what has been revealed to me in this regard that I think could save your life, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions, due to the prohibitions to me here from Mr. Hsiung. And I am so sorry my friends.
But be it as it may be, you can make your own determination by using the preponderance of the evidence here. You can see the years of outstanding notifications from me to Mr. Hsiung. If those were responded to, you could have my perspective included in your making your determination. But you can't, and that could lead you to be influenced and persuaded falsely. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2014, at 23:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ruzzul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2014, at 22:22:19
> those that are victims of discrimination [are] hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
I agree, those who have been victims can be more vulnerable, and safety can be a greater concern of theirs.
> If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
That's a good point, there's a difference between the post and the poster.
> For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
I agree, but what if the lawyer simply asked for leniency, and the judge felt they would want to be dealt with leniently themselves?
Bob
Posted by bryte on August 6, 2014, at 23:52:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 0:01:58
> > No ... For me, it is about as amusing as watching a bull fight.
>
> Are you saying you don't feel annoyed, but amused?I wrote nothing one way or the other about anxiety I might or might not feel. I addressed amusement in terms of equivalency.
My reference to anxiety was responsive to your muse in which you seem to recognize anxiety Lou might feel, then asked if you want me amuse myself by watching a sport in which sentient beings are caused pain then attracted to repeatedly mount attacks on the source of their pain, only to have their effort to confront the source of pain frustrated.
> The shift in policy is because of a shift in philosophy.Does the shift in philosophy preclude you from honoring a request that might reduce what you see as anxiety in a person you attracted to your group, in so far as the anxiety might be a reaction to earlier policies and in so far as honoring the request would do no harm? Does some other philosophy preclude you from honoring the request?
Do you think it would cause harm to honor a request that might reduce anxiety in a situation you were instrumental in creating?
Posted by bryte on August 7, 2014, at 0:03:40
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 5, 2014, at 19:32:00
> ... sometimes I want uncivil statements by me not to be repudiated.
>
> BobOnly sometimes? Do those times include times when you are acting in a leadership capacity?
When you are acting as a group leader, do you want others to guess when to renounce uncivil leadership on you part? Other than discerning a leader's capricious preference, how can group members know when to renounce uncivil leadership?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 7, 2014, at 16:50:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2014, at 23:49:16
> > those that are victims of discrimination [are] hugely vulnerable to feeling the lash of discrimination and need to have greater safety for them than others as you state here that members are to be civil at all times.
>
> I agree, those who have been victims can be more vulnerable, and safety can be a greater concern of theirs.
>
> > If you do not want the poster of defamation to feel bad by sanctioning the statement you could post that the statement is uncivil and do nothing else. It is the defamation of Jews and myself here that I want repudiated by you and you can do what you want with the poster of such.
>
> That's a good point, there's a difference between the post and the poster.
>
> > For a lawyer to argue to the judge of his convicted client that he should not have to go to prison because the judge would not want to be in prison and invoke the Golden Rule could be thought by a subset of readers as a perversion of the morality that the rule comes from.
>
> I agree, but what if the lawyer simply asked for leniency, and the judge felt they would want to be dealt with leniently themselves?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung
You wrote[...I agree...] and then you wrote [...What if...?]
What if you posted to the defamation and antisemitism that you allow here something like:
A. Readers please disregard what the statement could purport for our posting policies are that you are not to post what could lead someone to feel put down or accused or to post anything that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
B. Readers please be advised that I am allowing defamation to be posted toward Lou and also I am allowing statements that could put down Jews and could also arouse hatred toward Jews. That could lead you to think that I do not provide equal protection to Lou here. You are right.
C. something else
Lou Pilder
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.