![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 74 to 98 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 13:05:23
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-darhbrmetsdarhod » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 12:46:57
I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 14:54:07
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-darhbrmetsdarhod » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 13:05:23
> I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
>
> I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
>
> I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
>
> I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.Dinah,
Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-clairadminstrtion » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 14:54:07
> > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> >
> > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> >
> > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> >
> > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
>
> Dinah,
> Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> LouDinah,
Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordingly
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for criteria-sitrhn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
> > > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> > >
> > > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> > >
> > > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> > >
> > > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
> >
> > Dinah,
> > Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> > The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> > Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> > Lou
>
> Dinah,
> Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
> If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordinglyFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you would like to see what are generally considered to be the accepted criteria that determine as to if a school, or a club, or a government or some other body of members of some sort of community is or is not antisemitic as to how it is run. These criteria have been determined by the historical record from tranascripts of trials where this has been wanting to be determined. There are 7 major criteria and other criteria and I think that if you do not know them, if you knew of them ahead of posting here that that could give you a better understanding of those criteria in relation to this discussion and I think that you could then make a better determination of your own as to the question at hand here.
Lou
Posted by Dena on September 18, 2008, at 16:30:57
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
I see that the administration (the system, not the individuals) here is fear-based, and thus various religious/spiritual beliefs get maligned, both intentionally and unintentionally (by various posters), and that a great many harmful things are swept under the rug, rather than resolved.
I see that those unresolved things fester, and do not remain under said rug, but breed there (much like a malignancy), and thus an atmosphere of distrust, unsafety, and repression is fostered, which backfires on the very purpose of this group.
I'm not sure that I would say that it's specifically *only* antisemitic, as I've seen other groups/belief systems maligned as well. I see it across the board more clearly, now that I'm no longer aligned with any particular religious group. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can see that other dogs are indeed getting kicked to the curb, and that their pain is being dismissed (NOT that I'm calling *any* person here a "dog" -- just building on a metaphor).
Having said that, I am heading out of state for a wedding, and do not have time to comment further, nor to respond, should anyone reply to this.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:09:36
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for criteria-sitrhn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
I'm sorry, Lou. If you're looking for a written list of criteria, I fear I can't give you what you're looking for. I don't even think I could explain it informally without referring back to what I said before.
Thank you for clarifying that you weren't implying that any of the administration was antisemitic.
I think we all do our best. We all fall short of perfection, I'm sure.
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:13:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun » Lou Pilder, posted by Dena on September 18, 2008, at 16:30:57
I'll try not to personalize this, although it's hard for me. I felt hurt when I read your post. I'm not saying that's your intent.
I do my best not to kick or malign anyone.
As I told Lou, I don't have any claims to perfection.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 17:14:39
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
> > > > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> > > >
> > > > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> > > >
> > > > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> > > >
> > > > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
> > >
> > > Dinah,
> > > Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> > > The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> > > Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> > > Lou
> >
> > Dinah,
> > Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
> > If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordingly
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you would like to see what are generally considered to be the accepted criteria that determine as to if a school, or a club, or a government or some other body of members of some sort of community is or is not antisemitic as to how it is run. These criteria have been determined by the historical record from tranascripts of trials where this has been wanting to be determined. There are 7 major criteria and other criteria and I think that if you do not know them, if you knew of them ahead of posting here that that could give you a better understanding of those criteria in relation to this discussion and I think that you could then make a better determination of your own as to the question at hand here.
> LouFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to click on the offerd link and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, there could be more understanding of the issues here and that you could be better able to post your response here. And if you could look at the posts involving replacement theology, I would appreciate that because of what IMO has the potential to come up in this discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439097.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam, posted by Lou PIlder on July 30, 2008, at 17:00:03
Friends,
If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:11:25
In reply to Lou's request -schoughalovtubhufalough, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> there is an underscore between my name and the 1188The corrected link is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.html
Posted by Dena on September 23, 2008, at 17:47:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun » Dena, posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:13:00
> I'll try not to personalize this, although it's hard for me. I felt hurt when I read your post. I'm not saying that's your intent.
>
> I do my best not to kick or malign anyone.
>
> As I told Lou, I don't have any claims to perfection.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the delay, Dinah -- I've been out of town the last several days.
I'm also sorry that what I said hurt you -- that wasn't my intention. I tried to avoid that by saying that I saw problems with the *system* here in the administration, not with the *individuals*. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, personally. I see you as a person trying to make a difference for others, trying to make this world (your corner of it, your sphere of influence) a better place -- but I see that you're quite hampered by a system that attempts (likely through good, yet controlling intentions) to keep things "in check"... I see that system backfiring, and actually causing more harm than it's trying to prevent.
Again -- my opinion, based on my experience, and my observations. YMMV.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers.""We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something.""Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
> > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> >
> > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
> In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your ratrionale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
> > > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> > >
> > > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > [Dr.] Hsiung,
> > You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> > Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> > [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> > If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> > In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> > I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> > If you are wanting to mean that the statement in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statement has not been addressed in the past posts where it appears, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> [Dr.] Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your rationale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
> Lou Pilder
Posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to [Dr.] Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
how come you changed Mr to Dr ?
Took me awhiles to figger it eh?!!LOL!!!!
Cuz he both ain't he?
Lotsa times I just call him Bob, cuz he NOT above me.
He just a dude.
Ya that Bob dude annoys the hoo outta me LOL!
Love to hate THAT dude.
But reckon he knows that and don't give a rats *ss bout it.
Ha!
Not meaning to put ya down OK Gee gee, cuz I no bettern nobody either. Just was genuinely curious is all.
Respond or not, best wishes and all K?
Ya!
Posted by Geegee on September 26, 2008, at 16:39:50
In reply to how come? » Geegee, posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
Thanks for asking, muffled.
I don't know how Dr. Bob feels about using proper titles. My reason for editing is not about Dr. Bob, rather, it's about how I was brought up and what I believe regarding addressing others using titles. And it's about inferences I've made regarding this specific behavior. It's a personal thing for me. I'm sure I'll get bored with it sooner or later. :)
Warmly,
gg
Posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 18:21:29
In reply to Re: how come? » muffled, posted by Geegee on September 26, 2008, at 16:39:50
>Thanks for asking, muffled.
I don't know how Dr. Bob feels about using proper titles. My reason for editing is not about Dr. Bob, rather, it's about how I was brought up and what I believe regarding addressing others using titles. And it's about inferences I've made regarding this specific behavior. It's a personal thing for me. I'm sure I'll get bored with it sooner or later. :)
Warmly,
gg
ROFL!!! ya I noticed it down below after too!!!
Like the Mom likes to be called MRS. Muffled by the kids right? Like she don't like the kids using her first name cuz SHE wants a title, even LOL it just ol Mrs!!!!!
Only title she ever gonna get!
Ha!
Thanks for replying to me cuz I just couldn't figger it.
Mystery solved!
But now there's ANUTHER mystery cuz I be thinking bout the gg, and I thinking mebbe I know you!!!
Mebbe not, but if I right... HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Ya!
Posted by Geegee on September 27, 2008, at 0:39:52
In reply to Re: how come?, posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 18:21:29
> ROFL!!! ya I noticed it down below after too!!!
> Like the Mom likes to be called MRS. Muffled by the kids right? Like she don't like the kids using her first name cuz SHE wants a title, even LOL it just ol Mrs!!!!!lol, something like that, though I remember quite clearly meeting a new neighbor who said, "And the kids can call me [First name]" and my mom quickly said, "They'll call you Mrs. X." That's how I was brought up. Elders were Mr. or Mrs. or Dr. or whatever, not something other than the utmost respect. At least until they invited you to call them something else, and even then, not until we were adults ourselves.
> But now there's ANUTHER mystery cuz I be thinking bout the gg, and I thinking mebbe I know you!!!It's me. I got a bit worried about my privacy recently, and so I changed my name slightly. It looks weird to me, but I tried to keep it as something that would seem familiar.
gg
Posted by muffled on September 27, 2008, at 9:53:56
In reply to Re: how come? » muffled, posted by Geegee on September 27, 2008, at 0:39:52
Hey, glad to see you :-) Good name choice.
Sorry last post was unclear.
But I am the Mom and where we live the majority of kids call adults by their first names and I hate it!
I was brought up same as you. Even in adulthood I still felt uncomfortable calling adults by first name.
My Dad has a doctorate, but he rarely if ever used his title. he was a first name or just Mr. mostly.
He came from hardscrabble beginnings and worked hard to get his doctorate, but he also understood that others who worked just as hard didn't have titles for whatever reason.
So thats why I tend to avoid the Dr. title. Dr. Bob is not MY Dr., so he is Bob to me.
Cuz maybe I too had the smarts for a doctorate but I didn't have the mental health or money to do so.
Doesn't make me less than the guy with the title.
Doesn't mean the guy with the title doesn't got plenty of his own probs.
Just different ones.
We all got our own life path.
So I call Dr. R. Hsiung just Bob, because he is no better OR worse!!!! LOL! than me.
:-)
OK rant over!
Thanks for reminding me that my Dad is a good guy. I should visit.
This has been fun, thanks.
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2008, at 15:50:35
In reply to correction to link, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:11:25
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> > There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
>
> The corrected link is:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.htmlFriends,
If you are considering posting a response in this thread, or parallel threads, I am asking that you click on the link here that brings up a post to a thread. In the thread, there are no post from 10/18/04 to 10/25/04.
This aspect that there are no posts for the 6 days between those posts could be important to those IMO that are interested in posting in regards to the issues here. If you are interested in this aspect and would like to discuss that with me, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407530.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 7:12:13
In reply to Lou's request to discussants-mhschrum, posted by Lou Pilder on September 27, 2008, at 15:50:35
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> > > There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > > there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
> >
> > The corrected link is:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.html
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response in this thread, or parallel threads, I am asking that you click on the link here that brings up a post to a thread. In the thread, there are no post from 10/18/04 to 10/25/04.
> This aspect that there are no posts for the 6 days between those posts could be important to those IMO that are interested in posting in regards to the issues here. If you are interested in this aspect and would like to discuss that with me, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407530.htmlFriends,
If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by Mr. Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 10:46:44
In reply to Lou's request to discussants-fctsvthematr, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 7:12:13
> Friends,
> If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.htmlNope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
> C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netRegards,
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 11:51:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request to discussants-fctsvthematr » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 10:46:44
>
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> > A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> > B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
>
> Nope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
>
> > C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> > If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Regards,
>
> ggFriends,
It is written here a response to that does it mean that {leaving a post up} means that {no rule has been broken}?
Let us look at what came directly from Mr. Hsiung, as he writes,"right".
Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him as to if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing about it, that he thinks then that it was not against the rules.
Here is the link to his statement:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Now then there is the question of posts here being allowed to stand after they have been called to Mr. Hsiung's attention.
Then there is the question as to what is an antisemitic post?
Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him about that in that does if a statement puts down Jews and is uncivil as other uncivil posts are determined, then is it an antisemitic post?
He replied,{...I think that sounds right...].
Here is the link to that;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs439314.html
If you are considering responding to this thread, I would like for you to take into consideration those statements that came directly from Mr. Hsiung here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 12:18:50
In reply to Lou's reply-eqingloza » Geegee, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 11:51:43
> >
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being posting a response here, I am asking that you click on the following links and consider the content of them in any post that you may post here.
> > > A. In the following, there is the fact that the administration has posted to not post links to antisemitic websites. The original link by [Dr.] Hsiung uses the word, {period}, which has the generally accepted meaning IMO to mean to have no exceptions. You could email me for that post if you like.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020523/msgs/24558.html
> > > B. In the following, is the policy here that leaving a post up, which I think could also mean to allow a post to stand, is a fact that means to members that no rule has been broken?
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423282.html
> >
> > Nope. There are many many posts here that are still "up" on the site that did not or do not meet the site guidelines. Leaving a post "up" does not equal "no rule has been broken".
> >
> > > C. In the following, there is more concerning what others could think as a fact, IMO, when they see a post without any administrative action connected to it.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
> > > If you see more understanding as to my concerns here as facts, I would like for you to post such here or email me.
> > > Lou
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > gg
>
> Friends,
> It is written here a response to that does it mean that {leaving a post up} means that {no rule has been broken}?
> Let us look at what came directly from Mr. Hsiung, as he writes,"right".
> Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him as to if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing about it, that he thinks then that it was not against the rules.
> Here is the link to his statement:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> Now then there is the question of posts here being allowed to stand after they have been called to Mr. Hsiung's attention.
> Then there is the question as to what is an antisemitic post?
> Mr Hsiung replied to my question to him about that in that does if a statement puts down Jews and is uncivil as other uncivil posts are determined, then is it an antisemitic post?
> He replied,{...I think that sounds right...].
> Here is the link to that;
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs439314.html
> If you are considering responding to this thread, I would like for you to take into consideration those statements that came directly from Mr. Hsiung here.
> LouFriends,
The original question from me to Mr. Hsiung is in the following link. That question was then replied to Dinah.
Here is the link to the original question by me to Mr. Hsiung.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423270.html
Then there is a link that in the correected form is;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
This then brings up the relationship between posts that are allowed to stand, which could mean those posts that were directed to Mr. Hsiung and no action was taken. Those posts could fall into a different catagory than post that have not been asked to be addressed and are not addressed.
Lou
Posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
In reply to *corrections* Lou's reply-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 12:18:50
When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 15:34:18
In reply to Re: *corrections* » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
> When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
>
> I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,[...posts standing that were.. brought to the admin's attention..that is different...].
The fact here is that Mr. Hsiung has posted that it is right that one can assume that if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. (citation facts13).
To be brought to his attention could be done in many ways.
A.by emailing him
B.by posting the statement in question as a request for a determination
C.by others posting the statement as an identification and seeking from him a reason as to why nothing has been done.
D. by using the notification system
E. by using the babblemail system
F. By seeing that he has responded to the post in the thread and that his response could mean that he knows of it.
G. other possible ways
So when members see posts that have had nothing done to them, and they are of the nature that they , let's say, could lead a Jew or someone else to feel put down or accused by the post, they could rely on the fact that Mr. Hsiung writes that if nothing is done then he thinks it is not against the rules to post such. What also needs then to be determined is if it has been brought to Mr. Hsiung's attention. That could or could not be determined if the member wants to use the usual ways to find out. But could not some posts have obvious statements of the nature in question so that if there has not been something to bring it to his attention that can be seen, that their could have been and that no search for such could be made?
As to how many of those type are here, members have emailed me and asked me for them and if anyoe would like them, they could email me for posts of that nature.
Then in the types where I post a reminder that a notification is outstanding, members can email me to find out which post it is. They could then forward it to others.
As to one assuming that any post that has had nothing done is not against the rules, I do not know what could annul the fact that Mr. Hsiung has written here that those type that have been brought to his attention and have had nothing done are not against the rules if the person that sees the post in question knows that it has been brought to his attention. Also, one could use the TOS and the past practice that states what is uncivil to make their own determiniation and it may be plainly visible.
Then there is the fact that Mr. Hsiung states that he does what will be good for the community as a whole and to trust what he does. This could mean IMO that a post that has nothing done and has been asked to review in some way, and is plainly visible to have , let's say, statements that could lead a Jew or somwone else to feel put down or accused, could IMO lead a person to think that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it stand with nothing done even if there is something in the post that the one reading it thinks could lead a person to feel accused or put down and think that those statements of that nature are not against the rules. Is that not a fact? There are many examples on the board here now in statements and in links brought up by concerned members here and it is a fact that Mr. Hsiung has written to not post a link to a web site that has antisemitic content, period. (citation rspct 4)
I ask, could you post in your opinions, why posts that have been identified so far here of the nature in question are not addressed and could anull the fact of what Mr. Hsiung writes here? If you could, then I could rspond accordingly
Lou
citation (fact13)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
citation(rspct4). I would like those interested in this one to email me for that post.
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.