![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 661 to 685 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 12:01:09
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-evydece, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2014, at 8:20:44
> > > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> > > > Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html> Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me.
OK, let's resume that discussion.
> The statement in question ... is a statement that is allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted on the basis that you say that unsanctioned statements are not against your rules
As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> But it is much more than that. Here is your reply to me
> > IMO that wasn't ... a put-down of Judaism. For one thing, Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more, frequently.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html> The tactic of evasion is done by using deceit by making a statement that could be true that is irrelevant and could lead to a false conclusion.
I agree, statements that could be true, yet could lead to false conclusions, can be a problem. The approach I'm trying now is to allow them -- and also to allow others to post that the statements aren't necessarily true and the conclusions could be false.
> Your statement that readers could think that you are using to justify that the statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down is civil and that you will not sanction the statement because of that, uses a statement that is false and irrelevant. That is your statement that some readers could think that you are making the claim that Christian people can convert to Judaism even more frequently. The truth of the matter could be shown to not substantiate that claim by you because Judaism does not seek converts and it is a rare happening for Christians to convert to Judaism according to statistics concerning that which are published, and records from Jewish sects. In fact, the conversions are usually for purposes of marriage and many Jewish branches do not honor conversions. But the main point is that these conversions are small in number and refute your claim
I didn't research it myself. How often in fact do Jewish people convert to Christianity and Christian people convert to Judaism?
> And even if your claim was true, as to how many people convert from either religion to the other, that is irrelevant to the fact that the statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down. It would not matter if your claim was true or not. Either way, it does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post what could lead one of another faith to feel put down and to not put them down for having their faith.
I thought it was relevant to the second part of the post, the claim that Jewish people converted to Christianity all the time.
> To say that a Jew has to convert to Christianity to be saved, insults Judaism and is a statement not in accordance with what I have revealed as a Jew to be The Golden Rule.
> But what is done by you here is to use the tactic of evasion by using the tactic of making a statement that is irrelevant to lead readers to make a conclusion based on that statement.I wouldn't call addressing the second part of the post evasion. I addressed the first part of the post, too:
> > I agree, it wasn't sensitive to your feelings, but that's different from putting down Judaism. And I usually don't consider telling someone what to do once to be pressure/harassment.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060624.htmlAlso, the post didn't say that you, or any Jew, had to convert to Christianity to be saved.
Bob
Posted by Bryte on August 16, 2014, at 12:50:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 1:12:34
> I'm not sure how any nuisance could be attractive.
Google is your friend. Try it.
> You and Lou do seem to have something in common, worry about harm that might arise from my activities here.
Do consider interest or concern to always indicate worry?
Your definition of civility appears to include statements that could make others feel put down.
Do you believe characterizing someone's interest or concern as worry could lead a person to feel put down.
Do you think such characterization could cause a person to suspect someone may have attempted to make them feel put down?
Does your ongoing participation in dialogue about your activities indicate that you worry about your activities here?
Posted by Bryte on August 16, 2014, at 13:05:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 12:01:09
> Also, the post didn't say that you, or any Jew, had to convert to Christianity to be saved.
>
> BobThen ... although you previously disallowed Lou from posting texts about the foundations of his religion ... would you call the following statements in this forum uncivil at this time, outside discussion considering these statements in the abstract as is done here?
"Reasons against organized religion:
5. To advance any agenda that does not promote a caliphate under Sharia law."
And...
"Save yourself first. Christian people convert to Islam in Northern Iraq all the time."
And, may Lou now post the previously disallowed messages about the foundation of his faith?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2014, at 17:40:10
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 12:01:09
> > > > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
>
> > > > > Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
>
> > Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me.
>
> OK, let's resume that discussion.
>
> > The statement in question ... is a statement that is allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted on the basis that you say that unsanctioned statements are not against your rules
>
> As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
>
> > But it is much more than that. Here is your reply to me
>
> > > IMO that wasn't ... a put-down of Judaism. For one thing, Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more, frequently.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
>
> > The tactic of evasion is done by using deceit by making a statement that could be true that is irrelevant and could lead to a false conclusion.
>
> I agree, statements that could be true, yet could lead to false conclusions, can be a problem. The approach I'm trying now is to allow them -- and also to allow others to post that the statements aren't necessarily true and the conclusions could be false.
>
> > Your statement that readers could think that you are using to justify that the statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down is civil and that you will not sanction the statement because of that, uses a statement that is false and irrelevant. That is your statement that some readers could think that you are making the claim that Christian people can convert to Judaism even more frequently. The truth of the matter could be shown to not substantiate that claim by you because Judaism does not seek converts and it is a rare happening for Christians to convert to Judaism according to statistics concerning that which are published, and records from Jewish sects. In fact, the conversions are usually for purposes of marriage and many Jewish branches do not honor conversions. But the main point is that these conversions are small in number and refute your claim
>
> I didn't research it myself. How often in fact do Jewish people convert to Christianity and Christian people convert to Judaism?
>
> > And even if your claim was true, as to how many people convert from either religion to the other, that is irrelevant to the fact that the statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down. It would not matter if your claim was true or not. Either way, it does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post what could lead one of another faith to feel put down and to not put them down for having their faith.
>
> I thought it was relevant to the second part of the post, the claim that Jewish people converted to Christianity all the time.
>
> > To say that a Jew has to convert to Christianity to be saved, insults Judaism and is a statement not in accordance with what I have revealed as a Jew to be The Golden Rule.
> > But what is done by you here is to use the tactic of evasion by using the tactic of making a statement that is irrelevant to lead readers to make a conclusion based on that statement.
>
> I wouldn't call addressing the second part of the post evasion. I addressed the first part of the post, too:
>
> > > I agree, it wasn't sensitive to your feelings, but that's different from putting down Judaism. And I usually don't consider telling someone what to do once to be pressure/harassment.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060624.html
>
> Also, the post didn't say that you, or any Jew, had to convert to Christianity to be saved.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...as a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that...].
I see no revision at all, except that you have written to me here that you *should* revise that.
A subset of readers could think that you are going to revise your policy in order to allow the anti-Semitic statement in question to be seen as supportive or not supportive since you now say that the policy that you should make in your revision is that you may leave an uncivil statement to stand un intervened so that readers could not know if you are considering the statement civil or not by you. Readers still could consider the statement civil by you after you make the revision that you say that you should make. But the revision covers that you give yourself the option to allow anti-Semitism and defamation toward me to stand in the post where it is originally posted. That brings us back to that harm could come to a subset of vulnerable readers here regardless if you make the revision or not. And to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet, that readers could know besides that you post here that you should make the revision or they could not know of the revision unless they see this one post here which some readers may not even visit this board. And if you do post a disclosure to the forum in some way that they could know of the revision, would that not raise the issue as to your intent here and think that you are making your revision to allow Jews to be defamed here? Those readers could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that the statement in question is admitted by you to be not sensitive to my feelings as a Jew, but looking at the grammatical structure of the statement, [Convert-Lou Pilder...save yourself first.. convert to Christianity...], the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew. That is analogous to saying that being a Jew prohibits Jews from being saved. Or, No non-Christian will enter heaven. Or, Only Christians can be saved. All of those are already said by you to be statements that either put down Jews or lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down. The aspect that it is implied in the statement that unless Jews convert to Christianity they will not be saved, which is pressure, the pressure of the threat of being unsaved unless one converts. That threat, is psychological pressure used historically to dehumanize and stigmatize and belittle Jews on the basis that the statement, in and of itself, defames Judaism as a religion that can not offer salvation to those that give service and worship to the God that the Jews cherish.
I feel put down as a Jew when I read it and as long as you allow it to be seen without your tagline to please be civil, the damage that could arise out of readers seeing the statement as civil by you, could spread the fire of hatred toward the Jews through the winds of the internet into homes all over the world. Those winds can not be stilled even if you do post some type of revision, for the fire of hate started when the post was first posted and revising to allow it, could be thought by a subset of readers to mean that you could allow even more defamation toward the Jews to remain un sanctioned here by you. They could think that because your revision will allow you to do that on the basis that your revision says that you could allow anti-Semitism to stand here.
Let there be no misunderstanding here. Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2014, at 23:40:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 16, 2014, at 13:05:58
> > You and Lou do seem to have something in common, worry about harm that might arise from my activities here.
>
> Do consider interest or concern to always indicate worry?I can rephrase that:
You and Lou do seem to have something in common, interest or concern about harm that might arise from my activities here.
> would you call the following statements in this forum uncivil at this time, outside discussion considering these statements in the abstract as is done here? ...
I'm not sure, it might depend on the context.
> And, may Lou now post the previously disallowed messages about the foundation of his faith?
No. If you're interested, you're free to babblemail him.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2014, at 0:00:31
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-shudreviz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2014, at 17:40:10
> > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
>
> I see no revision at allBefore, I said:
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules.
> >
> > Righthttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Above, I revised that:
> > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.
--
> to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet
I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.
> the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.
A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.
> Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?
Bob
Posted by Bryte on August 21, 2014, at 1:30:30
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2014, at 23:40:38
> You and Lou do seem to have something in common, interest or concern about harm that might arise from my activities here.It is interesting that you notice a common interest in harm reduction but do not include yourself in that group that shares concerns about harm that could arise from your activities here. Do you think my concerns are different than your concerns?
If you recognize that people can be harmed by capricious enforcement of arbitrary, ad hoc rules, how do you choose whom you will expose to such potential harm?
Posted by Twinleaf on August 21, 2014, at 11:19:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 21, 2014, at 1:30:30
There have been several times over the past years when I have been pretty much the only person receiving sanctions, despite the fact that my comments are widely considered (by other community members) to be extremely moderate in comparison to others posted at the same time, and are often applied because of my request that mild, intermittent sanctions be applied to posts which appeared extremely destructive to the well-being of community as a whole.
The excessive retribution directed at my comments has been repeatedly characterized by other community members as "unfair", "bullying" and "capricious". I think it would be next to impossible to 1) avoid the impression that they are written with an intent to cause me stress and harm, and 2) that there is no constructive principle which would justify them. These actions appear to be caused by personal emotional reactions towards my comments which are not subjected to thoughtful review.
Treating different community members by differing standards, which are never made clear, may confer a sense of power and control temporarily. But all social groups need uniform, fairly- applied expectations and standards in order to survive and flourish. I believe it is very valid that you are drawing attention to the fact that they are missing here, and are very much needed.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:43:04
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2014, at 0:00:31
> > > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> >
> > I see no revision at all
>
> Before, I said:
>
> > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules.
> > >
> > > Right
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
> Above, I revised that:
>
> > > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.
>
> --
>
> > to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet
>
> I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.
>
> > the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.
>
> A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.
>
> > Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
>
> I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote in my response to you that for there to be a revision the FAQ would need to have the revision in it as to be a disclosure to the readers here, that:
[...I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ...].
Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2014004/msgs/1068732.html
Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
What was behind you writing that?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:45:53
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-bhdphay » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:43:04
> > > > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> > >
> > > I see no revision at all
> >
> > Before, I said:
> >
> > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules.
> > > >
> > > > Right
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> >
> > Above, I revised that:
> >
> > > > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet
> >
> > I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.
> >
> > > the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.
> >
> > A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.
> >
> > > Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
> >
> > I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote in my response to you that for there to be a revision the FAQ would need to have the revision in it as to be a disclosure to the readers here, that:
> [...I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ...].
> Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2014004/msgs/1068732.html
> Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
> What was behind you writing that?
> Lou Pilder
>
correction to link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:50:40
In reply to correction to link for -bhdphay, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:45:53
> > > > > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> > > >
> > > > I see no revision at all
> > >
> > > Before, I said:
> > >
> > > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > >
> > > Above, I revised that:
> > >
> > > > > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet
> > >
> > > I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.
> > >
> > > > the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.
> > >
> > > A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.
> > >
> > > > Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
> > >
> > > I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote in my response to you that for there to be a revision the FAQ would need to have the revision in it as to be a disclosure to the readers here, that:
> > [...I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ...].
> > Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2014004/msgs/1068732.html
> > Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
> > What was behind you writing that?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> correction to link
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
>
correction to the correction:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
Posted by pontormo on August 21, 2014, at 19:45:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Bryte, posted by Twinleaf on August 21, 2014, at 11:19:42
Hi Twinleaf,
I often agree with aspects of your critique of some of what's happened-- or at least with how certain things have been handled-- but I I hope you don't really believe that it's next to impossible to avoid the impression that what Bob writes is meant to cause you stress and harm.
I still believe that whatever Bob's mistakes-- or at least choices that I think unhelpful or even misguided-- he makes them honestly-- and while I may not understand why he handles things as he does, he'is trying to do the best he can by us.
I can be frustrated, or uncomfortable with things here-- or outright not like them, or upset by them (at least momentarily), but I can keep coming here only because I do believe in Bob's and our good faith.
It's very sad to me that you are unable to see this right now-- and I hope, on reflection, that you can sense that even if he has been unfair in some respects-- or not expressed things well-- he doesn't intend to cause you harm.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 20:43:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 21, 2014, at 19:45:41
> Hi Twinleaf,
>
> I often agree with aspects of your critique of some of what's happened-- or at least with how certain things have been handled-- but I I hope you don't really believe that it's next to impossible to avoid the impression that what Bob writes is meant to cause you stress and harm.
>
> I still believe that whatever Bob's mistakes-- or at least choices that I think unhelpful or even misguided-- he makes them honestly-- and while I may not understand why he handles things as he does, he'is trying to do the best he can by us.
>
> I can be frustrated, or uncomfortable with things here-- or outright not like them, or upset by them (at least momentarily), but I can keep coming here only because I do believe in Bob's and our good faith.
>
> It's very sad to me that you are unable to see this right now-- and I hope, on reflection, that you can sense that even if he has been unfair in some respects-- or not expressed things well-- he doesn't intend to cause you harm.pontormo,
You wrote,[...I hope you really don't believe that it is next to impossible to avoid the impression that what Bob writes is meant to cause you harm and stress...I believe...he doesn't intend to cause you harm...].
The aspect as to if Twinleaf has a rational basis to think what she does, involves what a generally accepted understanding is concerning what a reasonable person could believe concerning discrimination and what the research shows as to what can happen to the psychological/emotional damage that could happen to a person as the result of being a victim of discrimination.
One question is s to if you know the intent of Mr. Hsiung here. I have the following concerns.
A. How did you arrive at the belief that you have that Mr. Hsiung does not intend to cause harm to twinleaf?
B. Does it really matter if the intent of Mr. Hsiung is to not cause harm but harm happens anyway?
C. Is the standard that Mr. Hsiung {should know}, even if he doesn't know, what can cause emotional distress if he is going to chair a mental-health forum for support?
Lou
Posted by Twinleaf on August 21, 2014, at 21:59:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 21, 2014, at 19:45:41
Well....I don't think there is any doubt that I have been repeatedly singled out in a negative way, but I guess you are right - I can't really know what the motive actually is.
It has definitely been a very uncomfortable experience.
Posted by Bryte on August 21, 2014, at 23:42:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » pontormo, posted by Twinleaf on August 21, 2014, at 21:59:01
> It has definitely been a very uncomfortable experience.
One wonders to what extent discomfort is symptomatic of harm. One might suspect that, when reports of discomfort accumulate, harm might also be present.
The question with regard to harm might not be limited to whether something "is meant to cause you stress and harm." Intentional harm might incur a different or greater liability, but liability might also attach when an owner neglects duties of care. One can find numerous online sources to explain those concepts.
Much discussion of forum providers' liability addresses vicarious liability and contributory liability - especially as it relates to service provider definitions. In a venue where a mental health forum owner promises "The Best of Both Worlds," asserts that "posts I take responsibility for are my own," claims a right to "use (contributed content) as I wish" and exercises substantial, active control over what content is contributed, one might wonder to what extent questions of direct liability might arise.
It might be an accurate observation that many forum providers have opted for less overt involvement, have quietly removed potentially harmful content and have allowed members to remove or edit their own contributed content in part as means to avoid direct liability and clearly establish the owners' role as mere service providers.
It could be interesting to explore how many forum owners have persuaded liability underwriters the wisdom of making public, permanent examples of members in experimental efforts to explain ambiguous milieu expectations a professional leader cannot or will not explain in a TOS document - especially in contexts where membership predictably includes a significant proportion of at risk members.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2014, at 23:48:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » pontormo, posted by Twinleaf on August 21, 2014, at 21:59:01
> excessive retribution directed at my comments
> repeatedly singled out in a negative way
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block = 2 weeks
period of time since previous block = 31 weeks
severity = 2 (default)
block length = 2.23 rounded = 2 weeks
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2014, at 23:51:57
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 21, 2014, at 1:30:30
> If you recognize that people can be harmed by capricious enforcement of arbitrary, ad hoc rules, how do you choose whom you will expose to such potential harm?
I don't choose to expose anyone to capricious enforcement of arbitrary, ad hoc rules.
Bob
Posted by Bryte on August 22, 2014, at 0:00:15
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2014, at 23:51:57
> I don't choose to expose anyone to capricious enforcement of arbitrary, ad hoc rules.
>
> Bob
Are you saying do not capriciously enforce arbitrary ad hoc rules - by your definition, or by anybody's definition?Or are you saying that you do not choose to do so... perhaps that you do not knowingly do so?
Do you maintain professional liability insurance related to your activities here?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2014, at 0:25:33
In reply to correction to the correction to link for -bhdphay, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:50:40
> Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
> Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
> What was behind you writing that?You posted:
> 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.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068672.html
I posted:
> I wouldn't say the FAQ states otherwise. Where exactly do you think it does?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068700.html
You posted:
> The first and overriding part of your TOS is ... And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules. ...
> 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.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068703.html
I posted:
> Where do I state that?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068723.html
You posted:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068727.html
I posted:
> That's not the FAQ.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068730.html
I was just trying to clarify what was in the FAQ and what wasn't.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2014, at 10:04:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2014, at 0:25:33
> > Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
>
> > Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
> > What was behind you writing that?
>
> You posted:
>
> > 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.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068672.html
>
> I posted:
>
> > I wouldn't say the FAQ states otherwise. Where exactly do you think it does?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068700.html
>
> You posted:
>
> > The first and overriding part of your TOS is ... And further, you state that if a statement stands without sanction, it is not against your rules. ...
> > 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.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068703.html
>
> I posted:
>
> > Where do I state that?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068723.html
>
> You posted:
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068727.html
>
> I posted:
>
> > That's not the FAQ.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068730.html
>
> I was just trying to clarify what was in the FAQ and what wasn't.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
What is the significance, if anything, as to something being in the FAQ not?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 26, 2014, at 13:36:54
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-efehycue » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2014, at 10:04:38
> > I was just trying to clarify what was in the FAQ and what wasn't.
>
> What is the significance, if anything, as to something being in the FAQ not?A subset of readers could see it as more "official" than posts here. But mostly I just wanted to correct the record.
Bob
PS: I've redirected follow-ups regarding liability and insurance to a separate "Hsiung-Bryte discussion" thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070154.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 16:25:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 26, 2014, at 13:36:54
> > > I was just trying to clarify what was in the FAQ and what wasn't.
> >
> > What is the significance, if anything, as to something being in the FAQ not?
>
> A subset of readers could see it as more "official" than posts here. But mostly I just wanted to correct the record.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: I've redirected follow-ups regarding liability and insurance to a separate "Hsiung-Bryte discussion" thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070154.htmlMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...what is in the FAQ could be considered by some to be more official than what is posted by me, Lou, outside of what I have posted in the FAQ...].
Let us suppose that fictional member comes here named Simon Szez. Simon reads the FAQ and takes you at your word. He reads that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. He reads also outside of the FAQ that if a post is brought to your attention and is not sanctioned, that whatever it says is not against the rules here in the FAQ.
Now you say that what is not in the FAQ is not as official as what is in the FAQ
By what rational basis could Simon have to think that?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 16:47:43
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psymnsez » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 16:25:46
> > > > I was just trying to clarify what was in the FAQ and what wasn't.
> > >
> > > What is the significance, if anything, as to something being in the FAQ not?
> >
> > A subset of readers could see it as more "official" than posts here. But mostly I just wanted to correct the record.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > PS: I've redirected follow-ups regarding liability and insurance to a separate "Hsiung-Bryte discussion" thread:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070154.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...what is in the FAQ could be considered by some to be more official than what is posted by me, Lou, outside of what I have posted in the FAQ...].
> Let us suppose that fictional member comes here named Simon Szez. Simon reads the FAQ and takes you at your word. He reads that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. He reads also outside of the FAQ that if a post is brought to your attention and is not sanctioned, that whatever it says is not against the rules here in the FAQ.
> Now you say that what is not in the FAQ is not as official as what is in the FAQ
> By what rational basis could Simon have to think that?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
Now Simon also sees that you revised what you wrote to essentially mean that you took back that if a statement is unsanctioned it is not against your rules to now mean that readers have to guess if what is in question is against your rules or not since you now say that you could leave an uncivil statement unsanctioned whereas before, the unsanctioned statement means that it could be not against your rules.
By what rational basis do you use to allow a statement here that defames or puts down or is antisemitic to remain unsanctioned?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 9:36:24
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-whtrat?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 16:47:43
> Now you say that what is not in the FAQ is not as official as what is in the FAQ
A subset of readers could see it as more "official" because it's in a central location.
> By what rational basis do you use to allow a statement here that defames or puts down or is antisemitic to remain unsanctioned?
I might not sanction a statement that a subset of readers could object to because that might be what I think will be best for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2014, at 16:42:30
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 9:36:24
> > Now you say that what is not in the FAQ is not as official as what is in the FAQ
>
> A subset of readers could see it as more "official" because it's in a central location.
>
> > By what rational basis do you use to allow a statement here that defames or puts down or is antisemitic to remain unsanctioned?
>
> I might not sanction a statement that a subset of readers could object to because that might be what I think will be best for this community as a whole.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
A. You wrote,[...readers could see it as more official because it is in a central location...(the FAQ)...].
B. You also wrote,[...I might not sanction (anti-Semitic statements and defamation toward you, Lou), because that might be what I think will be best for this community as a whole...]
In "A", your rationale for thinking that what is in the FAQ is more official than what you post outside the FAQ is concerning the location of the two. The truth or falsity of your rationale could be determined through an arduous process to not be true or to be true. This is because a citation that could substantiate the veracity of your rationale is not included in your post here so that a rational basis for your claim is also not posted by you . This could mislead a subset of readers to a false conclusion by accepting your claim as fact because you state here that readers are to try to trust you, even though you have been wrong previously in discussions with me here. By you making up a standard without substantiation, if the standard is false, then your conclusion could also be false.
But it is much more than that. For there are readers that take you at your word and when they see:
1. members are to be civil at all times
2. even a small statement could lead someone to feel put down
3. being supportive takes precedence
4. anti-Semitic statements are not civil
5. Do not post what could lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down.
6. and other similar statements posted here by you
And when they see those and others, they see them as that you are clarifying your TOS/FAQ and that clarification to a subset of readers goes back to the FAQ/TOS as clarification with the same official meaning. They have a rational basis to think that because those statements by you listed here by me have not been taken back by you except the one in this thread that you say is a "revision" that a subset of readers could see as a take-back of what you wrote. The others have not been taken back and can be seen as a rationale basis to be as clarifications to your FAQ/TOS.
But be it as it may be, your FAQ/TOS states that you use fairness and the Golden Rule in your site. My questions are:
AA. How could the statements by you that I have listed here, like being supportive takes precedence, not be just as official as what is in the FAQ?
BB. What do you mean by "location"?
CC. Are you going to post in your FAQ that statements by you outside of the FAQ are not clarifications of FAQ?
DD. The golden Rule in Judaism involves justice and morality. How does that Golden Rule allow you to be either be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory , if you agree that your use of selective enforcement could be thought by a subset of readers to be another name for using discrimination by not applying your rules equally?
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.