![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 60 to 84 of 92. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2012, at 19:05:08
In reply to Re: opportunity to support europerep » Dr. Bob, posted by wearytraveler on March 29, 2012, at 3:51:08
wearytraveler,
I am requestng that you post answers to the following. If you could, then I could have a better understanding from someone that is new here that could have looked into some of the issues concerning me here.
A. Are you aware that there are numerous outstanding requests and notifications from me to the administration here that go back days, weeks, months and years?
B. If so, do you think that by the nature of all of those requests being outstanding, it could be good for the community as a whole to have them remain outstandng? If not, why not, or if so why so?
C. Is it supportive that there are these outstanding requests and notifications?
D. Could the community revive as being more active in somme way if the requests were acted on by the administration?
E. Could there be a correlation in your opinion with the number of outstanding notifications and requests, with the cause of inactivity, or decreased traffic, as you have posted here about?
F. Do you think that by the nature of those outstanding requests from me, that I could be a victim of violence being it either physical or psychologival/emotional?
G. Do you think that by the nature of there being these outstanding requests and notifications from me here, that the administration could thearfore cause an encouraging of what you could see here written about me?
H. If so, is that a sound mental-health practice in your understanding?
K. other observations concerning this situation
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2012, at 21:09:14
In reply to Louu's request- new poster's perception » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2012, at 19:05:08
> wearytraveler,
> I am requestng that you post answers to the following. If you could, then I could have a better understanding from someone that is new here that could have looked into some of the issues concerning me here.
> A. Are you aware that there are numerous outstanding requests and notifications from me to the administration here that go back days, weeks, months and years?
> B. If so, do you think that by the nature of all of those requests being outstanding, it could be good for the community as a whole to have them remain outstandng? If not, why not, or if so why so?
> C. Is it supportive that there are these outstanding requests and notifications?
> D. Could the community revive as being more active in somme way if the requests were acted on by the administration?
> E. Could there be a correlation in your opinion with the number of outstanding notifications and requests, with the cause of inactivity, or decreased traffic, as you have posted here about?
> F. Do you think that by the nature of those outstanding requests from me, that I could be a victim of violence being it either physical or psychologival/emotional?
> G. Do you think that by the nature of there being these outstanding requests and notifications from me here, that the administration could thearfore cause an encouraging of what you could see here written about me?
> H. If so, is that a sound mental-health practice in your understanding?
> K. other observations concerning this situation
> Louwearytraveler,
In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
Thank you in advance,
Lou
Posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 0:24:21
In reply to Louu's request- new poster's perception » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2012, at 19:05:08
A. Yes
B. I try not to consume the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (part 2, ditto)
C. It's supportive on your part to continue to make requests and notifications in support of the community.
D. Acting on the requests would be activity, which would of course be an increase in activity as compared to not acting on the requests.
E. There is clearly a correlation, though causation remains unclear.
F. Your anonymity probably protects you from violence by others, but I could envision a scenario where chronic attention to the concern on your part could be emotionally disruptive to you.
G. That could be one of innumerable outcomes.
H. If it causes you distress, a sound mental health practice might be discovered that could reduce your distress.
I. I appreciate your measured persistence. It's a true inspiration. Shalom.
Posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 0:32:21
In reply to Lou's request- new poster's perception-continued, posted by Lou Pilder on March 29, 2012, at 21:09:14
>
> wearytraveler,
> In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 7:42:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request- new poster's perception-continued » Lou Pilder, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 0:32:21
> >
> > wearytraveler,
> > In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> > Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
>
> If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
>wearytraveler,
The correction is that one match could start a {forest} fire. My apology for the {forest} not being there.
But being as that is that may be here, a forest fire could be of the nature of catastrophy, with the potential of many deaths. So the fire is in particular one of the nature to not allow here.
Now in my case with the years of outstanding requests to the administration here, there are some issues that if you could post answers here to them, I could have the opportunity to see how one that has not been a participant as a poster here, in the years back, being a new poster, views this sitution that I find myself in here.
A. Could you look at this notification here and then post answers to the follwing?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002327.html
to be continued...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 7:45:52
In reply to Lou's correction-- new poster's perception- » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 7:42:43
> > >
> > > wearytraveler,
> > > In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> > > Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
> >
> > If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
> >
>
> wearytraveler,
> The correction is that one match could start a {forest} fire. My apology for the {forest} not being there.
> But being as that is that may be here, a forest fire could be of the nature of catastrophy, with the potential of many deaths. So the fire is in particular one of the nature to not allow here.
> Now in my case with the years of outstanding requests to the administration here, there are some issues that if you could post answers here to them, I could have the opportunity to see how one that has not been a participant as a poster here, in the years back, being a new poster, views this sitution that I find myself in here.
> A. Could you look at this notification here and then post answers to the follwing?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002327.html
> to be continued...
> Loucorrected link:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002372.html
Posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 18:29:02
In reply to Lou's correction-- new poster's perception- » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 7:42:43
> > >
> > > wearytraveler,
> > > In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> > > Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
> >
> > If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
> >
>
> wearytraveler,
> The correction is that one match could start a {forest} fire. My apology for the {forest} not being there.
> But being as that is that may be here, a forest fire could be of the nature of catastrophy, with the potential of many deaths. So the fire is in particular one of the nature to not allow here.
> Now in my case with the years of outstanding requests to the administration here, there are some issues that if you could post answers here to them, I could have the opportunity to see how one that has not been a participant as a poster here, in the years back, being a new poster, views this sitution that I find myself in here.
> A. Could you look at this notification here and then post answers to the follwing?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002327.html
> to be continued...
> LouLou,
The assertion that one match could start a fire, or a forest fire, and therefore use of matches must be prohibited can be classified as a slippery slope argument, which is a form of fallacious argument.
In management of real forests, reasonable risk assessments do at times lead to restrictions on use of open flames. Whether the analogy applies here might involve the merits of any related risk assessment. That would require a determination of what is at risk.
As best I can see, the artifact at risk here is primarily Robert Hsiung's desire. His desire appears to be, in part - primarily, according to the informed consent procedure - to be to entertain the desire of his chosen guests to enjoy support and education. Who may be a guest is a factor of his discretion and authority. He appears to represent that his authority is informed in some way by his training and experience as a psychiatrist. My perception is that the study of sociology might be more relevant to some of the questions that are considered in this administrative forum.
A sociologist might be better trained to research and resolve questions related to group dynamics. Psychiatrists enjoy broad training, but I think the main aspect of a psychiatrist's training with regard to groups as it applies here has to do with group therapy. This group is only marginally a therapeutic milieu. It it more properly a support group -- not a therapeutic milieu. As such a sociologist's understanding of general group dynamics, and a technologists understanding of managing human factors of asynchronous networks might be as relevant, or more relevant, than a medial doctor's training in psychiatric ailments.
Back to the top, the artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners' desire for the forum. The notion that many (or even one) death, or even morbid outcomes short of death could occur as a result of any metaphorical fire here is plausible, but a fair assessment of likelihood is probably beyond what I can offer other than in general terms.
Let's take a separate example in an effort to set a baseline for assessing what could be real-life risks of death or injury related to activity on this site. When the first L.A. police officer delivered the first blow against Rodney King, he likely didn't anticipate that more blows would follow, and that controversy over those blows would lead to hundreds of fires and numerous deaths. It's probably safe to predict the likelihood of such a result stemming from something on this site is orders of magnitude less than the likelihood the Rodney King incident would start fires and cause deaths.
Why? This is a less public venue, Robert Hsiung is not in a position of civil authority, this venue attracts only a small share of the overall interest in online discussion, and conditions that could lead to a "fire" from online discussion are somewhat neutralized by a vast context where more egregious conflicts are navigated online thereby reducing tension around any particular conflict on one site that is relatively insignificant in the context of the global Internet community. In short, most conflict management discussion here is a rhetorical exercise, practical only in so far is it informs Bob Hsiung's desire and the desires he chooses to entertain among his guests - ostensibly support and education for the largest or preferred segment of that group.
So yeh, a butterfly beating its wings in North America could lead to a hurricane in Asia, but the likelihood that we can predict which beat of what butterfly's wing is so lost in the chaos, it in no way informs a conclusion that we should outlaw butterflies in North America. Similarly, I might share a perception that administration of this site is inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious, and recognize that in some circumstances someone might be or has been harmed, even died as a result of confusion triggered by something on this site, but I can't reliably connect the cause of confusion in what you cite as a possibly arbitrary, inconsistent administrative action as the likely cause of any suffering -- other than perhaps your own, and whatever secondary suffering I can see in reaction to yours.
At this point in my reply, I need to incorporate by reference my original contribution to this thread -- the suggestion that this site did not mature technically or socially as fast as did other sites. Those other sites -- facebook, yahoo groups, google+ and even threaded discussion forums administered by clinicians or clinical institutions had resources available to invest in people with technical training and I suspect in social administration of groups. A psychiatrists' training --- and desires --- can only go so far in that direction, especially when its only a part-time, avocational, extracurricular endeavor for the lone administrator.
Early on, that administrator was ahead of the curve, but he quickly learned. Bob Hsiung's first posts on this site - as I read them, offered particular opinions about medications. We'll likely never see that again. After a couple of years, he began to publicly offer specific opinions about behavioral expectations in particular circumstances. That can only last as long as his lifespan, and I suspect it won't last that long. In recent months and years, that approach as been inconsistent at best. He might or might not admit to himself, this group or various peers what limitations he's encountered.
Most other sites have moved that sort of administrative interaction away from the surface, offering commentary in reaction to particular behavioral circumstances privately, if at all outside of systematic publication of expectations and subsequent enforcement actions. Facebook doesn't publish many of its rules or enforcement mechanisms, and administers enforcement actions in a much more private venue -- automatically, it appears in many cases -- in response to particular user actions. Mark Zukerberg rarely if ever comments on whether or not he considers a particular individual's particular action to be civil or not. Thank you for that, Mark.
I personally suspect he's up against traits of his own personality that are beyond my understanding. Aren't we all? I don't think much of his approach to administering this site in any way reflects anything close to a consensus or a majority opinion among his professional peers about management of asynchronous networked dialogue among large groups. Where will it go? About all I can say is I care just enough to check in and offer my valuable insight -- which might be worth a fortune on the open market -- at risk of feeling put down by an administrator who might conclude he feels the same about me and decides to act against my interests in exercising his own interests.
Every word I type in risks getting crosswise that way, but hey, I care enough to support you by responding and to attempt to share the benefit of what I've learned, so if what I share seems uncivil to him, maybe I'll learn more about one U of Chi associate professor's novel notion of civility, huh?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 20:05:05
In reply to Re: Lou's correction-- new poster's perception-, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 18:29:02
wearytraveler,
There are a lot of answers in your post here. Let us look at one.
[...The artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners desire for the forum...death,..morbid outcomes..here is plausible...].
Now there is hhere that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence. So if a statement here is not sanctioned as unaceptable , others could think that the statement is supportive.
Here is a post that I am requesting that you read and comment if you like.
Lou
To see trhis post:
A. go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
[faith,1003212]
if mor than one, the subject line has,{dheheudhrhog}
Posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 21:07:18
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-support » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 20:05:05
> wearytraveler,
> There are a lot of answers in your post here. Let us look at one.
> [...The artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners desire for the forum...death,..morbid outcomes..here is plausible...].
> Now there is hhere that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence. So if a statement here is not sanctioned as unaceptable , others could think that the statement is supportive.
> Here is a post that I am requesting that you read and comment if you like.
> Lou
> To see trhis post:
> A. go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
> [faith,1003212]
> if mor than one, the subject line has,{dheheudhrhog}I can see how you get the impression things aren't administered consistently. I would prefer that more people understand how this effects you. I would also prefer that your concerns and my concerns be afforded better consideration in an administrative strategy.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 21:37:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-new poster's perception-support, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 21:07:18
> > wearytraveler,
> > There are a lot of answers in your post here. Let us look at one.
> > [...The artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners desire for the forum...death,..morbid outcomes..here is plausible...].
> > Now there is hhere that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence. So if a statement here is not sanctioned as unaceptable , others could think that the statement is supportive.
> > Here is a post that I am requesting that you read and comment if you like.
> > Lou
> > To see trhis post:
> > A. go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
> > [faith,1003212]
> > if mor than one, the subject line has,{dheheudhrhog}
>
> I can see how you get the impression things aren't administered consistently. I would prefer that more people understand how this effects you. I would also prefer that your concerns and my concerns be afforded better consideration in an administrative strategy.wearytraveler,
You wrote,[...more people understand...].
There is more to this here. You see, there could be an indoctrination here by the nature that Mr. Hsiung and his deputy and past deputies could controll the content here by the nature that posts not sanctioned as unacceptable could thearfore be considerd to be supportive.
Then Mr. Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole, and to try to trust him in that.
By the two conjoined, people reading here could not only think that what is in posts that I object to are not only supportive, but will be good for the community as a whole.
There are prohibitions to me here that you may not know that prohibits me from commenting on that in the way that I would like. If you could post here from your perspective on that, I could receive insight from one that is not a regular poster here.
Lou
Posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 23:52:02
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-good for, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2012, at 21:37:40
Lou,s
I appreciate your concern. If it's any consolation, there are other sites that are far more likely to transmit a message that anti-semitism is okay (which it's not by any means as far as I'm concerned).
A failure to resolve your concerns won't in the strictest sense prevent people who read this forum from drawing the conclusions you reference. What is more likely is that failure to resolve the concerns will cause those who read these forums to recognize that there are concerns that have not been resolved, thereby reducing the likelihood that some readers will consider this a reliable source of support and education. I can't speak for any other readers, but I might count as one such reader, though there are other concerns in addition to yours (as I noted in earlier posts) that inform my calculation of the value of this site for support and education. If I'm one, it's reasonable and sane to allow that there may be others who hold views like my own.
The Internet is not a perfectly self-regulated marketplace of ideas, but there is a degree of self-regulation at work. The administrator here is forced, by those self-regulating dynamics, to choose between appealing to a wider audience by figuring out which concerns need to be resolved to make the forum appeal to a wider audience, or to accept a smaller readership that might have a lower regard for the forum as a source of support and education because of unresolved appeals for consistent administrative behavior.
As I hope you've discerned from my posts in this thread, I hold in high regard your persistent efforts to work within available policy mandates to express your concerns here. My greatest other concern in that regard would be similar to the concern I hold for anyone who endeavors on such a mission. I would hope you don't invest more effort in sharing your concerns than you can afford to bear. Perhaps only you know how to measure that appropriate level of effort.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2012, at 8:52:59
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-new poster's perception-good for » Lou Pilder, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 23:52:02
> Lou,s
>
> I appreciate your concern. If it's any consolation, there are other sites that are far more likely to transmit a message that anti-semitism is okay (which it's not by any means as far as I'm concerned).
>
> A failure to resolve your concerns won't in the strictest sense prevent people who read this forum from drawing the conclusions you reference. What is more likely is that failure to resolve the concerns will cause those who read these forums to recognize that there are concerns that have not been resolved, thereby reducing the likelihood that some readers will consider this a reliable source of support and education. I can't speak for any other readers, but I might count as one such reader, though there are other concerns in addition to yours (as I noted in earlier posts) that inform my calculation of the value of this site for support and education. If I'm one, it's reasonable and sane to allow that there may be others who hold views like my own.
>
> The Internet is not a perfectly self-regulated marketplace of ideas, but there is a degree of self-regulation at work. The administrator here is forced, by those self-regulating dynamics, to choose between appealing to a wider audience by figuring out which concerns need to be resolved to make the forum appeal to a wider audience, or to accept a smaller readership that might have a lower regard for the forum as a source of support and education because of unresolved appeals for consistent administrative behavior.
>
> As I hope you've discerned from my posts in this thread, I hold in high regard your persistent efforts to work within available policy mandates to express your concerns here. My greatest other concern in that regard would be similar to the concern I hold for anyone who endeavors on such a mission. I would hope you don't invest more effort in sharing your concerns than you can afford to bear. Perhaps only you know how to measure that appropriate level of effort.wearytraveler,
You wrote,[...work within available policy...].
This is also one of my concerns here. If you could comment from your perspective here, then I could have the perception from one that has not been part of the major body of posters here.
In this post from here, there is the concept or not of {encouragement} by the administrator. This {encouragement} is far different from a third party poster posting from their own perspective, for if there is encouragement from the administration concerning Jews here, that is something that I would like to know if you see that or not. There is also the concept of {two standards} as to if that concept is or is not evident to someone like yourself that has not been a frequent poster here. One of the issues here is if you do or do not see an enouragement by the administrator to the other members here that could (redacted by respondent).
To see this post, go to the bottom of this page to the search box and type in:
[admin,7968,RE:please be].
In that post, could you comment on:
A. Can there be thought that there are two standards here in relation to the foundation of Judaism and the foundation of a lot of Christiandom groups?
B. In.[to those that obey him} could not a reasonable person think that thearfore those that do not obey (redacted by respondent)?
C. Could not members that read that post have a perception of Jews as a result of what is posted by the owner of this site to me there? If so, what perception could there be of Jews as a result of one reading what the owner of the site posts there?
D. In your opinion, what light could Judaism be cast in, to some that read that post?
E. (redated by respondent)
I know this could be difficult to read, but there are prohibitions made to me here by the administration that prohibit me from posting what I would like to conerning my perception of what the owner here has posted to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2012, at 9:41:10
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-two standards? » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2012, at 8:52:59
> > Lou,s
> >
> > I appreciate your concern. If it's any consolation, there are other sites that are far more likely to transmit a message that anti-semitism is okay (which it's not by any means as far as I'm concerned).
> >
> > A failure to resolve your concerns won't in the strictest sense prevent people who read this forum from drawing the conclusions you reference. What is more likely is that failure to resolve the concerns will cause those who read these forums to recognize that there are concerns that have not been resolved, thereby reducing the likelihood that some readers will consider this a reliable source of support and education. I can't speak for any other readers, but I might count as one such reader, though there are other concerns in addition to yours (as I noted in earlier posts) that inform my calculation of the value of this site for support and education. If I'm one, it's reasonable and sane to allow that there may be others who hold views like my own.
> >
> > The Internet is not a perfectly self-regulated marketplace of ideas, but there is a degree of self-regulation at work. The administrator here is forced, by those self-regulating dynamics, to choose between appealing to a wider audience by figuring out which concerns need to be resolved to make the forum appeal to a wider audience, or to accept a smaller readership that might have a lower regard for the forum as a source of support and education because of unresolved appeals for consistent administrative behavior.
> >
> > As I hope you've discerned from my posts in this thread, I hold in high regard your persistent efforts to work within available policy mandates to express your concerns here. My greatest other concern in that regard would be similar to the concern I hold for anyone who endeavors on such a mission. I would hope you don't invest more effort in sharing your concerns than you can afford to bear. Perhaps only you know how to measure that appropriate level of effort.
>
> wearytraveler,
> You wrote,[...work within available policy...].
> This is also one of my concerns here. If you could comment from your perspective here, then I could have the perception from one that has not been part of the major body of posters here.
> In this post from here, there is the concept or not of {encouragement} by the administrator. This {encouragement} is far different from a third party poster posting from their own perspective, for if there is encouragement from the administration concerning Jews here, that is something that I would like to know if you see that or not. There is also the concept of {two standards} as to if that concept is or is not evident to someone like yourself that has not been a frequent poster here. One of the issues here is if you do or do not see an enouragement by the administrator to the other members here that could (redacted by respondent).
> To see this post, go to the bottom of this page to the search box and type in:
> [admin,7968,RE:please be].
> In that post, could you comment on:
> A. Can there be thought that there are two standards here in relation to the foundation of Judaism and the foundation of a lot of Christiandom groups?
> B. In.[to those that obey him} could not a reasonable person think that thearfore those that do not obey (redacted by respondent)?
> C. Could not members that read that post have a perception of Jews as a result of what is posted by the owner of this site to me there? If so, what perception could there be of Jews as a result of one reading what the owner of the site posts there?
> D. In your opinion, what light could Judaism be cast in, to some that read that post?
> E. (redated by respondent)
> I know this could be difficult to read, but there are prohibitions made to me here by the administration that prohibit me from posting what I would like to conerning my perception of what the owner here has posted to me.
> Louwearytraveler,
You wrote onerning my efforts here and what I an afford. here is a post that ould give more light on that. If you ould read it, then I would appreiate any comments that you have in relation to this situaion that I find myself in here.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
B. Type in:
[admin, 1004189]
If there is more than one, phoargdspahyx is in the subject line
Posted by wearytraveler on March 31, 2012, at 12:35:25
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-two standards? » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2012, at 8:52:59
Lou,
Because each question (A-D) ask "can" or "could" in reference to the thoughts of a hypothetical or actual group of readers, the answer to each question is yes. Even if the thoughts weren't rational, they could be thought. A person might even rationally think the thoughts you suggest.Question D seeks an answer that informs a broader scope. If we take the simplest description of rhetorical "light" to be either a positive or negative light, the answer would be that Judaism could be cast in light anywhere along that scale, depending on how the reader parses the comments, and how much confidence they afford reasoning underlying the comment.
Posted by wearytraveler on March 31, 2012, at 12:44:41
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-effort/afford, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2012, at 9:41:10
Lou,
The person to whom you replied in that post revealed insight into her motivation that could be useful for a person attempting to persuade someone with that motivation.
In reference to your response, I often wonder how to measure the efficacy of proxy advocacy efforts. I can't readily offer a succinct measure in this circumstance.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2012, at 10:16:20
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-new poster's perception-two standards?, posted by wearytraveler on March 31, 2012, at 12:35:25
> Lou,
> Because each question (A-D) ask "can" or "could" in reference to the thoughts of a hypothetical or actual group of readers, the answer to each question is yes. Even if the thoughts weren't rational, they could be thought. A person might even rationally think the thoughts you suggest.
>
> Question D seeks an answer that informs a broader scope. If we take the simplest description of rhetorical "light" to be either a positive or negative light, the answer would be that Judaism could be cast in light anywhere along that scale, depending on how the reader parses the comments, and how much confidence they afford reasoning underlying the comment.wearytraveler,
You wrote about the light as to being either positive or negative or between those bounds.
But there could be many posts that encourage a type of thinking to the members/readers here by the nature of that many posts of the same nature could make what is there more confirmed as to which end of the continuim, (a positive or negative light) could be depicted about what is in question here. Here is a situation that I find myself here. Then if members are encouraged to (redacted by respondent), I am wondering if a poster like yourself that could see what can be seen here, that has not been a regular poster could post any comments about.
The sitution is that there is a list in the following post that my concern is about #5 in the second list. Then I request from Mr. Hsing concerning that. If you could examine the two posts and post any comments from your perspective, I would then be able to post my response to what you post.
Lou
The two posts are by going to the search box at the bottom of this page and putting in:
[faith, 378930] and the phrase [a good battle} will be in the subject line
then:
[admin, 1013840] and there wil be {urlyehbul} in the subject line.
Posted by wearytraveler on April 7, 2012, at 17:34:43
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-which light? » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on April 1, 2012, at 10:16:20
Lou,
My comment in response to that would be that Bob Hsiung uses this site to provide what he represents as a service. The consistency with which he administers the site sheds light on the extent to which he cares to extend service to various clients.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2012, at 16:19:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-new poster's perception-which light?, posted by wearytraveler on April 7, 2012, at 17:34:43
> Lou,
>
> My comment in response to that would be that Bob Hsiung uses this site to provide what he represents as a service. The consistency with which he administers the site sheds light on the extent to which he cares to extend service to various clients.wearytraveler,
You wrote,[...to provide what he represents as a service.The consistancy with which he administers the site sheds light on the extent to which he cares to extend service to various clients...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers here to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
A. What is the {represented service} that Mr. Hsiung is providing as you see it?
B. Can this service then be controlled by the administration by selective administration of Mr. Hsiung's stated purpose as in the TOS here?
C. If the service is related to the consistantcy of the administration of the site, then could the administration control the content as to what is or is not supportive?
D. If so, could some think that statements that are left to stand provide {the respresented service}?
E. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2012, at 17:12:47
In reply to Lou's reply-new poster's perception-the service » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2012, at 16:19:26
> > Lou,
> >
> > My comment in response to that would be that Bob Hsiung uses this site to provide what he represents as a service. The consistency with which he administers the site sheds light on the extent to which he cares to extend service to various clients.
>
> wearytraveler,
> You wrote,[...to provide what he represents as a service.The consistancy with which he administers the site sheds light on the extent to which he cares to extend service to various clients...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers here to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> A. What is the {represented service} that Mr. Hsiung is providing as you see it?
> B. Can this service then be controlled by the administration by selective administration of Mr. Hsiung's stated purpose as in the TOS here?
> C. If the service is related to the consistantcy of the administration of the site, then could the administration control the content as to what is or is not supportive?
> D. If so, could some think that statements that are left to stand provide {the respresented service}?
> E. redacted by respondent
> Lou
>
wearytraveler,
My apology. Please ignore all of the questions in the bove post from me. I will rephrase the post later..
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2012, at 16:21:15
In reply to Re: Lou's correction-- new poster's perception-, posted by wearytraveler on March 30, 2012, at 18:29:02
> > > >
> > > > wearytraveler,
> > > > In regards to continuing , the TOS here is that "one match could start a fire", which means that the administration does not wait to sanction a post to prevent a fire.
> > > > Now in any reply to me, could you keep that TOS in mind when you read concerning as to if that there are these nemerous outstanding request, could it then cause an encouragement as in (G) above.
> > >
> > > If we parse the metaphor of fire in a different sense -- the sense in which fire is a source of warmth, light, security and industrial energy -- lack of fuel could extinguish a fire. Interruption of the fuel supply resulting from unresolved administrative quandaries could diminish those beneficial aspects.
> > >
> >
> > wearytraveler,
> > The correction is that one match could start a {forest} fire. My apology for the {forest} not being there.
> > But being as that is that may be here, a forest fire could be of the nature of catastrophy, with the potential of many deaths. So the fire is in particular one of the nature to not allow here.
> > Now in my case with the years of outstanding requests to the administration here, there are some issues that if you could post answers here to them, I could have the opportunity to see how one that has not been a participant as a poster here, in the years back, being a new poster, views this sitution that I find myself in here.
> > A. Could you look at this notification here and then post answers to the follwing?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002327.html
> > to be continued...
> > Lou
>
> Lou,
>
> The assertion that one match could start a fire, or a forest fire, and therefore use of matches must be prohibited can be classified as a slippery slope argument, which is a form of fallacious argument.
>
> In management of real forests, reasonable risk assessments do at times lead to restrictions on use of open flames. Whether the analogy applies here might involve the merits of any related risk assessment. That would require a determination of what is at risk.
>
> As best I can see, the artifact at risk here is primarily Robert Hsiung's desire. His desire appears to be, in part - primarily, according to the informed consent procedure - to be to entertain the desire of his chosen guests to enjoy support and education. Who may be a guest is a factor of his discretion and authority. He appears to represent that his authority is informed in some way by his training and experience as a psychiatrist. My perception is that the study of sociology might be more relevant to some of the questions that are considered in this administrative forum.
>
> A sociologist might be better trained to research and resolve questions related to group dynamics. Psychiatrists enjoy broad training, but I think the main aspect of a psychiatrist's training with regard to groups as it applies here has to do with group therapy. This group is only marginally a therapeutic milieu. It it more properly a support group -- not a therapeutic milieu. As such a sociologist's understanding of general group dynamics, and a technologists understanding of managing human factors of asynchronous networks might be as relevant, or more relevant, than a medial doctor's training in psychiatric ailments.
>
> Back to the top, the artifact that could get burned if a metaphorical forest fire started here would be whatever is the owners' desire for the forum. The notion that many (or even one) death, or even morbid outcomes short of death could occur as a result of any metaphorical fire here is plausible, but a fair assessment of likelihood is probably beyond what I can offer other than in general terms.
>
> Let's take a separate example in an effort to set a baseline for assessing what could be real-life risks of death or injury related to activity on this site. When the first L.A. police officer delivered the first blow against Rodney King, he likely didn't anticipate that more blows would follow, and that controversy over those blows would lead to hundreds of fires and numerous deaths. It's probably safe to predict the likelihood of such a result stemming from something on this site is orders of magnitude less than the likelihood the Rodney King incident would start fires and cause deaths.
>
> Why? This is a less public venue, Robert Hsiung is not in a position of civil authority, this venue attracts only a small share of the overall interest in online discussion, and conditions that could lead to a "fire" from online discussion are somewhat neutralized by a vast context where more egregious conflicts are navigated online thereby reducing tension around any particular conflict on one site that is relatively insignificant in the context of the global Internet community. In short, most conflict management discussion here is a rhetorical exercise, practical only in so far is it informs Bob Hsiung's desire and the desires he chooses to entertain among his guests - ostensibly support and education for the largest or preferred segment of that group.
>
> So yeh, a butterfly beating its wings in North America could lead to a hurricane in Asia, but the likelihood that we can predict which beat of what butterfly's wing is so lost in the chaos, it in no way informs a conclusion that we should outlaw butterflies in North America. Similarly, I might share a perception that administration of this site is inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious, and recognize that in some circumstances someone might be or has been harmed, even died as a result of confusion triggered by something on this site, but I can't reliably connect the cause of confusion in what you cite as a possibly arbitrary, inconsistent administrative action as the likely cause of any suffering -- other than perhaps your own, and whatever secondary suffering I can see in reaction to yours.
>
> At this point in my reply, I need to incorporate by reference my original contribution to this thread -- the suggestion that this site did not mature technically or socially as fast as did other sites. Those other sites -- facebook, yahoo groups, google+ and even threaded discussion forums administered by clinicians or clinical institutions had resources available to invest in people with technical training and I suspect in social administration of groups. A psychiatrists' training --- and desires --- can only go so far in that direction, especially when its only a part-time, avocational, extracurricular endeavor for the lone administrator.
>
> Early on, that administrator was ahead of the curve, but he quickly learned. Bob Hsiung's first posts on this site - as I read them, offered particular opinions about medications. We'll likely never see that again. After a couple of years, he began to publicly offer specific opinions about behavioral expectations in particular circumstances. That can only last as long as his lifespan, and I suspect it won't last that long. In recent months and years, that approach as been inconsistent at best. He might or might not admit to himself, this group or various peers what limitations he's encountered.
>
> Most other sites have moved that sort of administrative interaction away from the surface, offering commentary in reaction to particular behavioral circumstances privately, if at all outside of systematic publication of expectations and subsequent enforcement actions. Facebook doesn't publish many of its rules or enforcement mechanisms, and administers enforcement actions in a much more private venue -- automatically, it appears in many cases -- in response to particular user actions. Mark Zukerberg rarely if ever comments on whether or not he considers a particular individual's particular action to be civil or not. Thank you for that, Mark.
>
> I personally suspect he's up against traits of his own personality that are beyond my understanding. Aren't we all? I don't think much of his approach to administering this site in any way reflects anything close to a consensus or a majority opinion among his professional peers about management of asynchronous networked dialogue among large groups. Where will it go? About all I can say is I care just enough to check in and offer my valuable insight -- which might be worth a fortune on the open market -- at risk of feeling put down by an administrator who might conclude he feels the same about me and decides to act against my interests in exercising his own interests.
>
> Every word I type in risks getting crosswise that way, but hey, I care enough to support you by responding and to attempt to share the benefit of what I've learned, so if what I share seems uncivil to him, maybe I'll learn more about one U of Chi associate professor's novel notion of civility, huh?wearytraveler,
You wrote,[...I care just enough to check in and offer my valuable insight...].
Here is another situation that if you could examine the issues, and post your insight, which I do consider to be valuable, then I could have your perspective to include in my thinking.
Lou
To see this sitiation:
A. Go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:[admin, 999436] there will be in the subject line, {ukhuhntrb}
B. then another post, so type in the search box;
[admin, 1013908]
there will be {uehylwhegt} in the subject line
Posted by free on April 11, 2012, at 22:32:39
In reply to Lou's apology--the service, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2012, at 17:12:47
Hi Lou,
I've been trying to reply back but I keep getting an error message, so I hope it's okay for me to respond here.
Thank you for the invitation but you and wearytraveler are way out of my league. My input would only take away from your interesting conversation. I respectfully decline and will sit on the sidelines where I will quietly listen.
Warmest regards,
Free
Posted by wearytraveler on April 12, 2012, at 4:24:57
In reply to Lou's request -- new poster's perception-ehnkurej » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2012, at 16:21:15
Lou,
After reviewing your post, I believe the following:
1. Robert Hsiung has stated repeatedly in these forums that to write "I feel" comprises an "I statement" and that "I statements" are more likely to comply with his personal subjective preferences for writing on a message board he owns. I am not as confident that I understand what, if any, consistency may be found in his view of statements about personal beliefs.
2. Your concerns relate to the manner in which Robert Hsiung has managed his behavior in reaction to guests he invited to post information on servers he leases and operates to provide access to read information posted by his invited guests on those servers. Your concerns as expressed in the message I found while researching your message related to the way he manages messages related to personal beliefs.
3. Your concerns about his management of statements regarding personal beliefs relate to the potential for harm to result from actions of those who read the messages about which you have concerns.
4. Numerous mass media and popular literature publications have recently discussed the risk of suicide among gay, lesbian, bisexual or transvestite youth when those youths perceive that their beliefs and concerns are treated inconsistently in public or quasi-public venues.
5. This electronic forum may be considered a quasi-public venue because messages my be read by anyone with unrestricted access to the Internet.
6. Concerns about the results of inconsistent treatment of people who express various beliefs in this venue are similar in some ways to the widely-recognized concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
7. The effects of administrative policies on guests of medical self-help forums has not been studied or reported as widely as the concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
8. One effect that might be similar between those of youths with atypical sexual behaviors and those who believe guests who make statements about belief on this forum are not treated consistently could be that guests who countenance such belief could feel rejected, unimportant, unwanted, alienated, fearful or unhappy.
9. Feelings of rejection, unimportance, being unwanted, alienation, fear and unhappiness are sometimes associated with poor social integration, poor personal adaptation and, in some cases, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts or suicide.
10. Makers of pharmacological substances who have been asked about the correlation of suicidal incidents and use of their products have at times argued that the persons were at risk of suicidal circumstances prior to taking their drugs, so any correlation between use of the drugs and suicidal circumstances cannot be reliably attributed to effects of their drugs.
11. Robert Hsuing has stated that his preferences for behavior in this group relate to what he believes is the best interest of the group.
12. The best interests of a group may or may not be the best interests of any or all individuals in a group.
13. Groups are sometimes formed for purposes that do not relate to the best interest of some or all members.
14. Some behaviors that can help perpetuate cohesion of a group may not be in the interests of any or all members of the group.
15. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing provides any medical advantage for any member of that group.
16. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that participation in a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing does not harm any member of that group.17. Administrators of psychological self-help groups might in some circumstances be tempted to proffer arguments similar to those advanced by pharmaceutical companies, in which it is argued that those who appear to suffer harm as a result were at risk of similar results before they participated in the group so the group process cannot be reliably cited as a contributing factor to the harm.
18. There is no guarantee that participation in this group will not cause harm to members.
19. There is no consistent or reliable method to assure that any adverse result of participation in this group will be attributed to the actual cause of that result.
20. Robert Hsuing states euphemistically that "mileage may vary" indicating a casual interest in whatever results guests here may experience.
21. Some members have reported adverse results of participating in this group.
22. This administrative forum represents a venue for discussion of adversity resulting from these forums, offering evidence that the administrator believes guests believe adversity sometimes results from these forums.
23. People could be hurt from circumstances you cant control and there might be nothing you can do about it.
24. You or I might suffer adverse results, including suicidal circumstances as a result of participating in this forum.
25. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities.
26. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might have no real benefit for the person who discussed those circumstances.
27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act.
27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator.
28. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator and then argue that the person who died was at risk of suicide anyway, so it's not the doctors fault for ignoring their concerns about his inconsistent behavior, ignoring their rising frustration, calling authorities to their house in a way that they would be stigmatized by neighbors or employers in such a way that they were inspired to act on suicidal ideation that arose from interaction with the medical doctor.
28. There are many types of people among the 6 billion currently living in this world, including some in positions of authority who speak about others taking responsibility for their own actions but who do not take responsibility for the consequences of their own behavior.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2012, at 5:46:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request -- new poster's perception-ehnkurej, posted by wearytraveler on April 12, 2012, at 4:24:57
> Lou,
>
> After reviewing your post, I believe the following:
>
> 1. Robert Hsiung has stated repeatedly in these forums that to write "I feel" comprises an "I statement" and that "I statements" are more likely to comply with his personal subjective preferences for writing on a message board he owns. I am not as confident that I understand what, if any, consistency may be found in his view of statements about personal beliefs.
>
> 2. Your concerns relate to the manner in which Robert Hsiung has managed his behavior in reaction to guests he invited to post information on servers he leases and operates to provide access to read information posted by his invited guests on those servers. Your concerns as expressed in the message I found while researching your message related to the way he manages messages related to personal beliefs.
>
> 3. Your concerns about his management of statements regarding personal beliefs relate to the potential for harm to result from actions of those who read the messages about which you have concerns.
>
> 4. Numerous mass media and popular literature publications have recently discussed the risk of suicide among gay, lesbian, bisexual or transvestite youth when those youths perceive that their beliefs and concerns are treated inconsistently in public or quasi-public venues.
>
> 5. This electronic forum may be considered a quasi-public venue because messages my be read by anyone with unrestricted access to the Internet.
>
> 6. Concerns about the results of inconsistent treatment of people who express various beliefs in this venue are similar in some ways to the widely-recognized concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
>
> 7. The effects of administrative policies on guests of medical self-help forums has not been studied or reported as widely as the concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
>
> 8. One effect that might be similar between those of youths with atypical sexual behaviors and those who believe guests who make statements about belief on this forum are not treated consistently could be that guests who countenance such belief could feel rejected, unimportant, unwanted, alienated, fearful or unhappy.
>
> 9. Feelings of rejection, unimportance, being unwanted, alienation, fear and unhappiness are sometimes associated with poor social integration, poor personal adaptation and, in some cases, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts or suicide.
>
> 10. Makers of pharmacological substances who have been asked about the correlation of suicidal incidents and use of their products have at times argued that the persons were at risk of suicidal circumstances prior to taking their drugs, so any correlation between use of the drugs and suicidal circumstances cannot be reliably attributed to effects of their drugs.
>
> 11. Robert Hsuing has stated that his preferences for behavior in this group relate to what he believes is the best interest of the group.
>
> 12. The best interests of a group may or may not be the best interests of any or all individuals in a group.
>
> 13. Groups are sometimes formed for purposes that do not relate to the best interest of some or all members.
>
> 14. Some behaviors that can help perpetuate cohesion of a group may not be in the interests of any or all members of the group.
>
> 15. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing provides any medical advantage for any member of that group.
>
>
> 16. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that participation in a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing does not harm any member of that group.
>
> 17. Administrators of psychological self-help groups might in some circumstances be tempted to proffer arguments similar to those advanced by pharmaceutical companies, in which it is argued that those who appear to suffer harm as a result were at risk of similar results before they participated in the group so the group process cannot be reliably cited as a contributing factor to the harm.
>
> 18. There is no guarantee that participation in this group will not cause harm to members.
>
> 19. There is no consistent or reliable method to assure that any adverse result of participation in this group will be attributed to the actual cause of that result.
>
> 20. Robert Hsuing states euphemistically that "mileage may vary" indicating a casual interest in whatever results guests here may experience.
>
> 21. Some members have reported adverse results of participating in this group.
>
> 22. This administrative forum represents a venue for discussion of adversity resulting from these forums, offering evidence that the administrator believes guests believe adversity sometimes results from these forums.
>
> 23. People could be hurt from circumstances you cant control and there might be nothing you can do about it.
>
> 24. You or I might suffer adverse results, including suicidal circumstances as a result of participating in this forum.
>
> 25. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities.
>
> 26. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might have no real benefit for the person who discussed those circumstances.
>
> 27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act.
>
> 27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator.
>
> 28. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator and then argue that the person who died was at risk of suicide anyway, so it's not the doctors fault for ignoring their concerns about his inconsistent behavior, ignoring their rising frustration, calling authorities to their house in a way that they would be stigmatized by neighbors or employers in such a way that they were inspired to act on suicidal ideation that arose from interaction with the medical doctor.
>
> 28. There are many types of people among the 6 billion currently living in this world, including some in positions of authority who speak about others taking responsibility for their own actions but who do not take responsibility for the consequences of their own behavior.wearytraveler,
Of the many aspects being discussed here, one is as to if prefacing a statement with "I believe", or "I feel", will make what is the belief acceptable to be posted here in relation to the rules Mr. Hsiung uses here in his TOS.
That question has been answered here as to that it is what the belief is , as I understand Mr. Hsiung's TOS, as to if it is allowable to be posted here or not according to the TOS that states to not post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down or accused, even if one believes it. This can be determined by examining Mr. Hsiung's response to that question in the following posts. Mr. Hsiung states that the use of a preface of "I believe" does not, as I see his response to mean, allow what is unacceptable to be acceptable. He uses the following example.
Lou
To see Mr. Hsiung's example;
A. Go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
[admin,821340] pppsgtabnwbg will appear in the subject line.
Then,
[admin, 772523] ptdwn is in the subject line
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2012, at 19:51:29
In reply to Lou's reply-- new poster's perception- eyebeeleev » wearytraveler, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2012, at 5:46:14
> > Lou,
> >
> > After reviewing your post, I believe the following:
> >
> > 1. Robert Hsiung has stated repeatedly in these forums that to write "I feel" comprises an "I statement" and that "I statements" are more likely to comply with his personal subjective preferences for writing on a message board he owns. I am not as confident that I understand what, if any, consistency may be found in his view of statements about personal beliefs.
> >
> > 2. Your concerns relate to the manner in which Robert Hsiung has managed his behavior in reaction to guests he invited to post information on servers he leases and operates to provide access to read information posted by his invited guests on those servers. Your concerns as expressed in the message I found while researching your message related to the way he manages messages related to personal beliefs.
> >
> > 3. Your concerns about his management of statements regarding personal beliefs relate to the potential for harm to result from actions of those who read the messages about which you have concerns.
> >
> > 4. Numerous mass media and popular literature publications have recently discussed the risk of suicide among gay, lesbian, bisexual or transvestite youth when those youths perceive that their beliefs and concerns are treated inconsistently in public or quasi-public venues.
> >
> > 5. This electronic forum may be considered a quasi-public venue because messages my be read by anyone with unrestricted access to the Internet.
> >
> > 6. Concerns about the results of inconsistent treatment of people who express various beliefs in this venue are similar in some ways to the widely-recognized concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
> >
> > 7. The effects of administrative policies on guests of medical self-help forums has not been studied or reported as widely as the concerns of youths with atypical sexual preferences or orientations.
> >
> > 8. One effect that might be similar between those of youths with atypical sexual behaviors and those who believe guests who make statements about belief on this forum are not treated consistently could be that guests who countenance such belief could feel rejected, unimportant, unwanted, alienated, fearful or unhappy.
> >
> > 9. Feelings of rejection, unimportance, being unwanted, alienation, fear and unhappiness are sometimes associated with poor social integration, poor personal adaptation and, in some cases, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts or suicide.
> >
> > 10. Makers of pharmacological substances who have been asked about the correlation of suicidal incidents and use of their products have at times argued that the persons were at risk of suicidal circumstances prior to taking their drugs, so any correlation between use of the drugs and suicidal circumstances cannot be reliably attributed to effects of their drugs.
> >
> > 11. Robert Hsuing has stated that his preferences for behavior in this group relate to what he believes is the best interest of the group.
> >
> > 12. The best interests of a group may or may not be the best interests of any or all individuals in a group.
> >
> > 13. Groups are sometimes formed for purposes that do not relate to the best interest of some or all members.
> >
> > 14. Some behaviors that can help perpetuate cohesion of a group may not be in the interests of any or all members of the group.
> >
> > 15. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing provides any medical advantage for any member of that group.
> >
> >
> > 16. To my knowledge, no empirical, peer-reviewed, double-blind-study evidence has been published that participation in a self-help group administered by Robert Hsuing does not harm any member of that group.
> >
> > 17. Administrators of psychological self-help groups might in some circumstances be tempted to proffer arguments similar to those advanced by pharmaceutical companies, in which it is argued that those who appear to suffer harm as a result were at risk of similar results before they participated in the group so the group process cannot be reliably cited as a contributing factor to the harm.
> >
> > 18. There is no guarantee that participation in this group will not cause harm to members.
> >
> > 19. There is no consistent or reliable method to assure that any adverse result of participation in this group will be attributed to the actual cause of that result.
> >
> > 20. Robert Hsuing states euphemistically that "mileage may vary" indicating a casual interest in whatever results guests here may experience.
> >
> > 21. Some members have reported adverse results of participating in this group.
> >
> > 22. This administrative forum represents a venue for discussion of adversity resulting from these forums, offering evidence that the administrator believes guests believe adversity sometimes results from these forums.
> >
> > 23. People could be hurt from circumstances you cant control and there might be nothing you can do about it.
> >
> > 24. You or I might suffer adverse results, including suicidal circumstances as a result of participating in this forum.
> >
> > 25. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities.
> >
> > 26. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might have no real benefit for the person who discussed those circumstances.
> >
> > 27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act.
> >
> > 27. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator.
> >
> > 28. A forum administrator might respond to discussion of suicidal circumstances by contacting authorities to protect his personal assets against liability claims when contact with authorities might exacerbate suicidal circumstances, even escalating suicidal ideation to effective execution of a suicidal act, even in circumstances when the suicidal ideation arose from conflict that originated from perceptions of inconsistent administrative behavior by the forum administrator and then argue that the person who died was at risk of suicide anyway, so it's not the doctors fault for ignoring their concerns about his inconsistent behavior, ignoring their rising frustration, calling authorities to their house in a way that they would be stigmatized by neighbors or employers in such a way that they were inspired to act on suicidal ideation that arose from interaction with the medical doctor.
> >
> > 28. There are many types of people among the 6 billion currently living in this world, including some in positions of authority who speak about others taking responsibility for their own actions but who do not take responsibility for the consequences of their own behavior.
>
> wearytraveler,
> Of the many aspects being discussed here, one is as to if prefacing a statement with "I believe", or "I feel", will make what is the belief acceptable to be posted here in relation to the rules Mr. Hsiung uses here in his TOS.
> That question has been answered here as to that it is what the belief is , as I understand Mr. Hsiung's TOS, as to if it is allowable to be posted here or not according to the TOS that states to not post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down or accused, even if one believes it. This can be determined by examining Mr. Hsiung's response to that question in the following posts. Mr. Hsiung states that the use of a preface of "I believe" does not, as I see his response to mean, allow what is unacceptable to be acceptable. He uses the following example.
> Lou
> To see Mr. Hsiung's example;
> A. Go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
> [admin,821340] pppsgtabnwbg will appear in the subject line.
> Then,
> [admin, 772523] ptdwn is in the subject linerevise:
Lou
[admin, 11:06:18, ptdwn]
Posted by free on April 18, 2012, at 18:24:32
In reply to Lou's revise- new poster's perception- eyebeeleev, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2012, at 19:51:29
Nope, I'm still getting an error message. Thanks again, though. You gents carry on. I'm enjoying your conversation.
I'm glad you're getting some of your questions answered by wearytraveler, Lou. It must be immensely satisfying for you.
Regards,
Free :)
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.