![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:07:12
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 8:53:35
Yes, Scientologists fought long in court to have their faith recognized as a religion. Scientologists have also realized considerable success in court combatting libels against their faith.
Scientology generally holds that the practice of psyhchiatry requires faith, and as such is a state religion. To test the proposed list of statements as they might be tested in a libel trial, we can simply reverse them, replacing the faith-system of Scientology with the faith-system of psychiatry. Would the campus psychiatrist who operates this site deem them "civil" according to his unique system of civility if they were presented as below?
> 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:50:35
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Racer on July 15, 2005, at 21:05:35
>
> Dr Bob is apparently going to be back tonight, when he will be reading all of this. How about waiting for his determination, and letting Dinah have a rest?
As I accurately anticipated, the campus psychiatrist who operates this site avoided for the second time the obvious quandry presented in my querry, but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
I suggest nobody will find any other circumstance, among the half-million posts on this board, in which this psychiatrist has asked someone to disclose their faith.I am precluded from presenting here further analysis of his methods because he is not nearly as tolerant of criticisms of his own actions as he is of those who use his forum to describe his professional critics as "creepy". More likely he would sanction me for describing "creepy" as a disparaging remark.
He claims that he is doing his best and demands that we accept the same. Fine. This must be the best he can do.
>I would hate even more to see Dinah feel attacked, when she is providing a service to the community as a whole.
What you choose to hate is entirely your own choice. If the woman wants to take a role in this community, it is entirely appropriate of me to inquire of her about her execution of that role.
By the way, Racer , how many consecutive PBC's have you received this year without having been blocked? I counted three.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 14:00:10
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:07:12
> Yes, Scientologists fought long in court to have their faith recognized as a religion. Scientologists have also realized considerable success in court combatting libels against their faith.
>
> Scientology generally holds that the practice of psyhchiatry requires faith, and as such is a state religion. To test the proposed list of statements as they might be tested in a libel trial, we can simply reverse them, replacing the faith-system of Scientology with the faith-system of psychiatry. Would the campus psychiatrist who operates this site deem them "civil" according to his unique system of civility if they were presented as
below?I believe he would. That is exactly my point. The way Dr. Bob attempts to enforce his guidelines of civility is with logic regardless of content. I am glad you chose to simply substitute "Scientology" with "psychiatry". The resulting statements are no more and no less civil than the originals. You should hang-out here for a little while to see the board in action. It usually, but not always, works.
> > 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> > 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> > 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> > 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> > 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> > 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
I do not agree with the above statements, and here is why: (yada yada yada)BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 14:16:47
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 14:00:10
> You should hang-out here for a little while to see the board in action. It usually, but not always, works.
That I'm invisible doesn't mean I don't "hang out" here. I've read the archives extensively, and have observed chronic inconsistency in enforcement of the so-called civility guidelines.
Scott, I've reviewed extensively the enforcement activities here as well as efforts by community members to describe and defend those actions. I have also presented some of the rhetorical arguments for "I-statements" and "civility" guidelines to long-time members of language and literature departments. I have failed to find anyone in that capacity who concurs with members of this group who assert the guidelines are internally consistent.
I don't agree that the statements below would be accepted. If I had the time, I could collate the statements with specific occassions when a similar statement has been dissallowed, which is the reason I switched nouns to render this list as counterpoint.
>
>
> > > 1. I don't agree with psychiatry.
> > > 2. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with mine.
> > > 3. The beliefs of psychiatry are in conflict with those of modern science, and the following in an example: (yada yada yada)
> > > 4. I believe that for many people, indoctrination into psychiatry includes methods of brainwashing, and the following are anecdotes as reported by following people whom have experienced this: (yada yada yada)
> > > 5. I agree that the faithful practice of psychiatry can be dangerous, and the following are examples of this: (yada yada yada)
> > > 6. I believe the media reports describing the deaths of children forced to undergo medical procedures by parents whose faith in psychiatry requires such practices.
>
>
> I do not agree with the above statements, and here is why: (yada yada yada)
>
> BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
>
>
> - ScottThat is courteous of you, but this is a message board, not the New York Times. I expect people here to be casual and imprecise in their writing styles.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:18:26
In reply to Re: You wouldn't?, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:50:35
Hi SO
Can you do me a favor and provide me with a link to the post in which you asked Dr. Bob to review the "creepy" post on one of the other boards, 2000 I think? I remember seeing the "creepy" post itself, but I still don't know what transpired in your interchange with him.
> > Dr Bob is apparently going to be back tonight, when he will be reading all of this. How about waiting for his determination, and letting Dinah have a rest?
> As I accurately anticipated, the campus psychiatrist who operates this site avoided for the second time the obvious quandry presented in my querry,I think we should give the moderator some time to reply to your posts. He rarely allows posts on the Administration board to remain unattended. Actually, he rarely allows any thread on any board to remain unattended. It still amazes me how thorough he is.
> ...but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
I think this was a mistake on the part of the moderator. It is one that happens rarely. I was surprised when I saw it.
> I suggest nobody will find any other circumstance, among the half-million posts on this board, in which this psychiatrist has asked someone to disclose their faith.
It is quite possible that he didn't consider Scientology to be a religion at the time he wrote his reply to you. I think it was an innocent mistake.
> I am precluded from presenting here further analysis of his methods because he is not nearly as tolerant of criticisms of his own actions as he is of those who use his forum to describe his professional critics as "creepy". More likely he would sanction me for describing "creepy" as a disparaging remark.
SO, I am curious as to how long you have been monitoring or posting at the Psycho-Babble website. I ask this question only to encourage you to watch how well things work here if you are new to the site.
Regardless of whether or not a mistake was made by the moderator, the site and its management usually works well under the guidelines of civility as defined and enforced by Dr. Bob. Prejudicial enforcement is something rarely, if ever, seen here. I don't usually participate on the Administration board, so I can't speak confidently on behalf of its operation. However, I can't think of a single instance on the therapeutics boards where Dr. Bob's enforcement of civility was prejudicial. That's pretty weird, huh? Not a single instance? He must certainly make mistakes? In my mind, yes he does. But his track record is a good one. One mistake I think he made was asking you if you were a Scientologist. I wouldn't read too much into that, though. I also feel that the post that upset you deserves a moderator's comment. Not to do so would be another mistake.
I must tell you, SO, that I disagree with much of what Scientology offers. For now, I would react incredulously if you were to accuse Dr. Bob as being part of a grand conspiracy by psychiatrists to purge the Earth of Scientology. From what I've read so far, though, that is exactly what Scientology is trying to do to psychiatry. I might suggest that this is not the right forum to debate the practicability of psychiatry. The main medication board would probably be the best place to start.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:46:51
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » SLS, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 14:16:47
> > BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
> >
> >
> >- Scott> That is courteous of you, but this is a message board, not the New York Times. I expect people here to be casual and imprecise in their writing styles.
I don't take casually the feelings of others. Nor do I take casually the dignity of individuals or groups of individuals. Whenever my education allows, I try to demonstrate a respect of people as being no less human than I am. Simply hitting the "Shift" key is the least that I could do. That you don't appreciate it means nothing to me. I will continue to do it anyway.
I will always try to respect you as a fellow human being, but I may never come to respect you as a source of knowledge and understanding. My guess is that this means nothing to you. It shouldn't.
(It really should, though. I know everything).
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 20:04:19
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:46:51
> > > BTW, if it means anything to you, I went out of my way to capitalize the word "Scientology" in my posts.
> > >
> > >
> > >- Scott
>
> > That is courteous of you, but this is a message board, not the New York Times. I expect people here to be casual and imprecise in their writing styles.
>
> I don't take casually the feelings of others. Nor do I take casually the dignity of individuals or groups of individuals. Whenever my education allows, I try to demonstrate a respect of people as being no less human than I am. Simply hitting the "Shift" key is the least that I could do. That you don't appreciate it means nothing to me. I will continue to do it anyway.
>
> I will always try to respect you as a fellow human being, but I may never come to respect you as a source of knowledge and understanding. My guess is that this means nothing to you. It shouldn't.I take pains to assure that no one vests authority in me, so I would expect that you have no means to recognize what I might contribute to your knowledge and understanding. You would never know me as "so" even if I were sitting across the table working with you toward some mutually important goal.
With regard to punctuation, I'm more impressed by a person's ability to hit a combination of keys that reflect a capacity to understand specific merits of a particular faith system and perhaps to adjudge the relative fallacy of one system in the context of other flawed systems than I am interested in a person's attention to capitalizing a particular word.
> (It really should, though. I know everything).
At least everything you need to know to be who you are.
Posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 20:52:27
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 20:04:19
Respect for someone as a source of knowledge and understanding is earned and not bestowed. You have yet to earn mine. It is as simple as that. It is nothing personal.
If you have a problem with the practice of psychiatry, then why don't you move your focus of attention to the Psycho-Babble (medical) board and share with that forum some of your knowledge and understanding? If you don't care to, that is fine too. I really don't care. If you have a problem with Dr. Bob, then by all means stay on Administration and pursue him. You wouldn't be the first. I doubt you will be the last. I might end up doing it myself someday.
It always brings a smile to my face when someone appears who has such a vehement dislike of the doctor that they make it a project to discredit him and close his website. To me, it is comedy. Each person seems to display their weaknesses in an effort to locate those of Dr. Bob. I'm not saying that you have any weaknesses. You probably don't. Perhaps some of these other people grew up hating their fathers. I really don't know. It is just such a fanciful goal to topple the almighty authority figure that is Dr. Robert Hsiung. Go for it! LOL Most of the others have long since disappeared.
In the meantime, let us suppose that Dr. Bob is wrong about everything and you have proven your case. Now what?
That I happen to know everything should not get in the way of us being friends. It is just who I am.
In actuality, I know enough to more fully appreciate what it is that I don't know.
Ah, but enough pontificating for one post.
I wish you good luck in your ventures of benevolence, and bad luck on those that are anything but.
Peace.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 21:44:26
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 15:18:26
> Hi SO
>
> Can you do me a favor and provide me with a link to the post in which you asked Dr. Bob to review the "creepy" post on one of the other boards, 2000 I think?It's logged in the post at the top of this thread http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20041213/msgs/525416.html
> I think we should give the moderator some time to reply to your posts. He rarely allows posts on the Administration board to remain unattended. Actually, he rarely allows any thread on any board to remain unattended. It still amazes me how thorough he is.
Our experiences differ. On one recent occassion, he waited 13 days before responding to my repeated requests to review a post on politics. In the mean time, he asked me a series of questions, each of which took a considerable amount of his time. Rarely if ever have I observed comparable rumination on his part in reference to any post which he later deemed uncivil. The one in question charactrerized a particular public policy as a "joke".
Likewise, in this case, he has no need to interogate me about my faith. The time it takes him to contemplate my faith or to interogate my feelings could just as well be spent contemplating how the statement "They're that creepy" in reference to any person comports or conflicts with his instructions to not "jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others."
We all know scientologists are human, and hence are among the "others" referenced in the FAQ. He never wrote in his FAQ "...others known to frequent this board." My faith du jour is irrelevant to whether he allows people to call other people creepy on his board.
>
> > ...but instead asked me a question about my religious faith.
>
> I think this was a mistake on the part of the moderator. It is one that happens rarely. I was surprised when I saw it.
I disagree. I agree it is a mistake, but not a mistake of ommission -- rather one of mistaken intent. I think it might reveal an intention on the part of the moderator. In my experience as a Web moderator, the word "creepy" as the object in a third-person sentence is sufficient to alert me that it is time sit up and pay attention to who is calling who what, not time to start asking people questions about their religion. I could train most any Seventh Grade student who can maintain a "B" grade average to perform the same sort of consistent moderation in less than an hour, at least as far as recognizing the problems of calling any entire group of people "Creepy."
>
> It is quite possible that he didn't consider Scientology to be a religion at the time he wrote his reply to you. I think it was an innocent mistake.I would think a doctor of psychiatry would have at least a working knowledge of prominant religions. Even if it were not recognized as a religion, what could it be that is so abhorant to be rightly called "creepy" on a Web site that otherwise does not even allow people to call recruitment of suicide bombers "monsterous"?
Asking rhetorically, since we seem to agree on the matter, why does the religous status matter? Scientologists are people, they were called creepy. That is the begining, the middle and the end of that story. It is all one needs to know to make a decision about how the statement fits within the guidelines and standard administrative practices at this site.
>
> SO, I am curious as to how long you have been monitoring or posting at the Psycho-Babble website. I ask this question only to encourage you to watch how well things work here if you are new to the site.I've been watching long enough to know what is going on. The archives allow anyone to become familiar with the history of the site, and my review as well as my interaction here does not lead me to an affirmative conclusion about "how well things work here."
>
> Regardless of whether or not a mistake was made by the moderator, the site and its management usually works well under the guidelines of civility as defined and enforced by Dr. Bob. Prejudicial enforcement is something rarely, if ever, seen here.
That something is not seen can sometimes reveal more about the attentiveness of a viewer than it does about the facts at hand. Basic nuerobiology tells us perception most often focuses on what is anticipated. While the administrator is willing to sanction some popular members, people who believe they are on the "bad member" list have reported delays in responding, responding with questions instead of addressing problematic posts, diversions to e-mails which are not answered. Prejudice might be more easily identified as a lack of interest in the appeals of unfavored members moreso than by failure to sanction favored members.> However, I can't think of a single instance on the therapeutics boards where Dr. Bob's enforcement of civility was prejudicial. That's pretty weird, huh?
Not at all. We are easily influenced by what we expect to find, so if you expect him to be consistent I would expect it might take considerable evidence to the contrary before you publicly declare that you have witnessed prejudicial enforcement. Let me ask this, if Hsiung ultimately allows a longtime member to call members of a certain faith "creepy" unchallenged after, say, two weeks or a month, would you then say that you have witnessed prejudiced enforcement?
>One mistake I think he made was asking you if you were a Scientologist. I wouldn't read too much into that, though.I would. I have read the same texts he has about the use of questions in therapuetic settings. When a person is trained to ask questions, it is fair to contemplate the purpose of a question they ask.
> I also feel that the post that upset you deserves a moderator's comment. Not to do so would be another mistake.
I'm not saying I'm upset - even if someone did "say something that could lead (me) to feel put down", but I do appreciate that one of the more reasoned long-time members of this forum readily recognizes the problematic nature of the moderator's performance so far in this matter.
> I must tell you, SO, that I disagree with much of what Scientology offers.
Surprise, surprise, but so do many Scientologists.
>For now, I would react incredulously if you were to accuse Dr. Bob as being part of a grand conspiracy by psychiatrists to purge the Earth of Scientology.
No grand conspiracy, Scott. More like a basic human response to people with whom we disagree. Cops sometimes profile and forcibly detain innocent members of certain ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean they are part of a grand conspiracy to destroy those groups. They usually say they are doing it "for the good of the community."
>From what I've read so far, though, that is exactly what Scientology is trying to do to psychiatry.
No more so than Christianity is trying to eradicate Islam or visa versa, or than Coke is trying to destroy Pepsi. Unrelenting rhetorical opposition is far different than a campaign to remove an ideology from the earth. The later most often matures to systematic (and usually ineffectual) violence.
>I might suggest that this is not the right forum to debate the practicability of psychiatry. The main medication board would probably be the best place to start.
Only to get booted to social then faith then alternative then social. But my purpose is not to debate the merits of psychiatry or of other faith systems. I have little interest in discussing the practicability of psychiatry in this forum, in large part because I think such discussion would be more productive in a forum not administered by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion.My purpose for posting to his board about this is to expose a circumstance in which an entire group of people was called "creepy" and to question the administrator about the consistency of his statement that "so far I have allowed" members to call people of a particular religous faith "creepy".
Posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 21:58:47
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 20:52:27
> Respect for someone as a source of knowledge and understanding is earned and not bestowed. You have yet to earn mine.
Perhaps that is because I have not aspired to aquire your respect for me as a source of knowledge and understanding. However I have today obliged your interest in me as a source of knowledge and understanding about how a particular doctor has allowed one religious group to be described as creepy in a forum that generally disallows such generalizations.
>
> If you have a problem with the practice of psychiatry, then why don't you move your focus of attention to the Psycho-Babble (medical) board and share with that forum some of your knowledge and understanding?All that i have said about my perspective on psychiatry was to hint at an appreciation for the faith of Scientology, in a context generally unrelated to any specific tenet of that faith. If that presents evidence to you about my regard for psychiatry, I suggest you review your evidentiary standards.
> It always brings a smile to my face when someone appears who has such a vehement dislike of the doctor that they make it a project to discredit him and close his website.
That is interesting. What is your reaction in a circumstance such as the present dialogue, in which a persons sole stated intention is relavent to one policy and one post, and not related to discrediting the administrator and closing the Web site?
I'm not saying that you have any weaknesses. You probably don't. Perhaps some of these other people grew up hating their fathers. I really don't know. It is just such a fanciful goal to topple the almighty authority figure that is Dr. Robert Hsiung. Go for it! LOL Most of the others have long since disappeared.
Others? Are you classifying me as a member of some group you are attempting to describe?
> In the meantime, let us suppose that Dr. Bob is wrong about everything and you have proven your case. Now what?I've not made a case about "everything". I have entered discussion about a specific post, which the administrator stated he has "so far" allowed. His reference to "So far" suggests he may be tractable on the matter. I am applying traction.
> That I happen to know everything should not get in the way of us being friends.If you know everything, you know I have no friends other than the six billion who happen to live on the earth today, and that I don't play favorites.
Posted by Jen Star on July 17, 2005, at 0:54:21
In reply to Re: You wouldn't?, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 13:50:35
I think that if someone is worried about "disclosing" their faith, and is not comfortable strongly stating that they are "such and such" faith, then that person should not be prosetylizing that particular faith or using it in examples on a board such as this one. It just doesn't seem honest or authentic to me.
Just my thoughts.
JenStar
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:17
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » so, posted by SLS on July 16, 2005, at 20:52:27
> By the way, Racer , how many consecutive PBC's have you received this year without having been blocked? I counted three.
>
> so> It always brings a smile to my face when someone appears who has such a vehement dislike of the doctor that they make it a project to discredit him and close his website. To me, it is comedy.
>
> SLSPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
In reply to what about my religion?, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 2:12:01
> That is irrelevant to the question of whether you allow people to call members of certain religions "creepy".
So you're retracting what you said before?
> I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 8:53:35
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy, posted by so on July 16, 2005, at 21:58:47
Hi So; Dr. Bob,
I am getting a bit confused as to what's going on here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528903.html
I don't understand this post.
Well, anyway, my wording in a previous post was judged by the doctor as worthy of generating a PBC. That's fair. I guess I wasn't clever enough to funnel statements of the general into an accusation of the individual. Let me retrieve the wording that earned me the PBC and change it in a way that will hopefully pass inspection:
"It occurs very often that someone appears who has such a vehement dislike of the doctor that they make it a project to discredit him and close his website."
I'll rephrase that if necessary, but this has been my observation. I wouldn't include SO in the above statement at this juncture, but I nonetheless find this website worthy of defense. My biasis are often betrayed, but this is usually my intent. Sometimes not.
For now, SO, I hope we can remain focused on the two posts that you have taken issue with and not extrapolate a moderators' behavior regarding them to a pattern of function of the website as a whole. Perhaps you and I are adept at seeing patterns.
Unlike you, SO, I don't have 6 billion friends. There are people whom hate me vehemently. We might agree that this is sometimes very flattering.
- Scott
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 9:56:57
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Jen Star on July 17, 2005, at 0:54:21
> I think that if someone is worried about "disclosing" their faith, and is not comfortable strongly stating that they are "such and such" faith, then that person should not be prosetylizing that particular faith or using it in examples on a board such as this one. It just doesn't seem honest or authentic to me.
>I didn't see any proselytizing, or was that just a hypothetical situation? I think there is a difference though, wondering why someone needs to know what your religion is and not being comfortable saying it.
If you are referring to So, he's said a few times he follows Scientology, I don't sense any discomfort in disclosure (Except perhaps that he may not recieve the same "civility respect" as those of other religions.
In this case I don't understand why Dr. Bob need to have that information in order to answer his question about civility either. I'm not a Scientologist but I found his point valid on it's own.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:01:09
In reply to Re: what about my religion?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
> > That is irrelevant to the question of whether you allow people to call members of certain religions "creepy".
>
> So you're retracting what you said before?
No I am not. I am stating that I should not have needed to expose matters related to my faith to have you enforce the rules you wrote and asked guests of your site to comply with.
> > I am called "creepy" because of my religious beliefs.
>
> Bob
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:03:06
In reply to Re: You wouldn't? » so, posted by Jen Star on July 17, 2005, at 0:54:21
> It just doesn't seem honest or authentic to me.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> JenStarI feel put down when someone chooses to publish their thought that they don't see me as honest or authentic.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:16:56
In reply to Re: Please don't call me creepy » SO » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 8:53:35
> For now, SO, I hope we can remain focused on the two posts that you have taken issue with and not extrapolate a moderators' behavior regarding them to a pattern of function of the website as a whole. Perhaps you and I are adept at seeing patterns.
The pattern I hope you and other steadfast members of this group recognize, Scott, is that when some "bad members" bring valid citations of plain-sight contradictions in the rules, Bob Hsiung sometimes responds with questions, unusually delays an eventual intervention in the matter at hand for days or weeks, and as you have witnessed in this thread, uses the discussion he promotes in the mean time by allowing such clearly dissonant conditions to develop as an occassion to sanction complainants rather than addressing the complaint.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 12:35:38
In reply to I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 12:03:06
>
> I feel put down when someone chooses to publish their thought that they don't see me as honest or authentic.For what it's worth to you, I'd have felt very put down as well, particulary as it comes across to me that you put honesty and authenticity above making yourself "Popular"
I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 12:35:38
> I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
> > I'll butt out now, I know you are very capable of fighting your own battles. I get annoyed on behalf of others too often I think.
>
>
> Thank you for the compliment, but you are more than welcome to stand with me, or to take the lead when you see fit.Thanks then, I know it can feel intrusive to some.
> While this doctor seems inclined to require me to confront this extremely negative labeling of faithful people out of self interest, my motivation is to stand by my friends. That is why I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith, and assert a right to ask for protection of "others" as is guaranteed by the site terms of service. I value defense of others moreso than I value defense of self.
>
Yes I understood your point in the first post And had a similar reaction (though I'm not really thinking Dr.Bob's motives for asking are nefarious) I think he too missed the point. It's a principal and who belongs to what is not the issue. Assuming that you are not comfortable with stating your personal beliefs because of that particular response to Dr. Bob is incorrect and if it was true, it would be irrelevent to the issue regardless.
Posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:24
In reply to Re: I feel put down » so, posted by gabbii on July 17, 2005, at 13:39:11
I think it would be impossible for someone to be both "uncomfortable stating their religious beliefs" and proselytizing at the same time.
That would be quite a trick. Unless perhaps the proselytizing was not meant to be connected to religious views, but that's often what the word is associated with, so I took it in that context.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:43:43
In reply to Re: what about my religion?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:34:54
Your FAQ says: "Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, harass or pressure others, use language that could offend others ..."
however, you wrote that "So far I am allowing" members to call adherents to certain religous groups "Creepy". Further, you asserted that my refusal to repeat my confession of faith comprised a racantation of my faith. I can only conclude that this means you believe refusal to repeat a position on demand comprises abandonment of that position.
So you have retracted your rules against jumping to conclusions or posting things that could lead others to feel put down?
Posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
Hi So,
> Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.I do feel that the doctor has been pretty even-handed in his enforcement of civility. He has allowed some pretty noxious posts directed at him and the operation of his bulletin board remain posted without taking any action other than dole out PBCs to some of the posters who reacted quite intensely to those posts. Perhaps I am not one of his favorites that I should get PBC'd along this thread. Perhaps... I try not to psychoanalyze the doctor and his toilet habits for every PBC I recieve. I actually find him quite lenient when it comes to passing out posting blocks. I might not feel the same way once I recieve my first, however.
I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:52:47
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 13:46:59
> I guess the question that comes to my mind is if the original "creepy" post would have been allowed unsanctioned in the Faith forum. I think passing or failing that scrutiny would be a litmus test of sorts.
>
>
> - ScottThat is a valid question, of course, but the broader question is whether calling a particular group of people "creepy" conforms to the site rules. The rules don't differentiate standards for the faith board, the politics board or any other board.
Generally speaking, as understood by the vast majority of the English-speaking world, civility implies that one in a leadership position will be true to his word.
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.