![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 65 to 89 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by violette on July 26, 2010, at 12:25:36
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
> "Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support. And see if you get blocked."
If support is a goal of the forum, then a poster who is 'being negative' about ideas through a critical post with the purpose of promoting a supportive environment, is, in fact, being positive.
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:08:18
In reply to negative posts about ideas, posted by violette on July 26, 2010, at 12:25:36
I feel that I could not have said it better, Violette!! Thank you!
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:14:03
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
Bob, what DOES a face full of cat feel like? Is it furry? Is it warm? Do you hear a purr? Do you feel claws? Does it land on it's feet on your face like the urban legions says it can? Do you get fur in your mouth? Does the cat dander cause you any sneezing, itching, twitching and headaches? Do you have to have a professional remove said cat from your face?
Do you like it?
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:18:39
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
Bob, is there anything else I need to say or apologize for? I've posted two heartfelt messages but I may have missed a threat to "block again" that is hidden away somewhere.
I need to go grocery shopping and I don't want to leave if I've overlooked the possibility of another apology or a speech.
Posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:25:12
In reply to Re: the system here » sigismund, posted by chujoe on July 25, 2010, at 5:51:44
>Sig, I've talked about it before in other threads on this board, but in brief what I mean by "philosophically empty" is that "civility" at Psychobabble is enforced by a form of coercion that cloaks itself in the language of personal responsibility while denying the possibility of responsibility by enforcing what is really a language code, not an ethics. This system is, also, inherently arbitrary. Finally, limiting discussion of controversial issues to "I statements" that describe one's feelings rather than on'e knowledge (knowledge being infinitely and superficially relative) means that argument in any real sense is impossible.
I've never been very impressed by civility as such. I prefer friendliness, which you can't legislate for. The effect of the manners which the civility rules encourage is to make me feel at home in a situation in which I read meaning into people's posts. With people I know I most often feel I know how they are feeling, so naturally it feels quite paranoid.
Thanks
Posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:27:27
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2010, at 0:47:06
>The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
Back to the cat.
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 15:34:54
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by sigismund on July 26, 2010, at 15:27:27
> >The desire to be negative reminds me of the Faceful of Cat Effect.
>
> Back to the cat.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955990.html:-)
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 15:36:40
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 13:14:03
Urban legion should be urban legends.
Posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 20:34:30
In reply to Re: the system here » violette, posted by fayeroe on July 25, 2010, at 13:32:06
I still hate Nixon and he's been dead for 20 years. Is that uncivil of me?
Posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 21:32:54
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 20:34:30
> I still hate Nixon and he's been dead for 20 years. Is that uncivil of me?
I don't know what the rules are on dead Presidents but if it is uncivil, both of us can wait for our PBC!
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 0:24:40
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 26, 2010, at 11:11:23
> If I were going to propose an ethics of posting at Psychobabble, it would involve, at least, two features: 1) No ad hominem attacks; 2) The requirement that one post in good faith. ... One would be considered to be posting in good faith by: A) observing the rule against ad hominem attacks, B) honestly trying to advance the discussion / argument toward greater understanding (this would include the current ban on wild over-generalizations), & C) being explicit when something someone posts pushes your buttons. In regard to this last point, one might say, for example, "That statement makes me angry," or "I can't help taking that statement personally," or even, perhaps, "I think that statement calls for an apology." (I'm uncertain about this last example.) Any of these responses gives the person addressed an opportunity to respond in a number of ways: With silence, which, while not ideal, would be considered acceptable; with clarification or apology, which would be the ideal; or with a screw-you statement, which would be evidence of bad faith. Finally, we might all try to be careful to be explicit when we are using sarcasm, irony, or other forms of expression that don't translate well from speech to print.
Thanks for offering an alternative. I agree with your principles. Maybe an alternative to that last example might be:
> > I'd appreciate an apology.
> As an example of the sort of good faith discussion of a difficult subject, I'd point to the recent "toxic crap" thread on the Medication board. I think everyone behaved admirably there & I include Link's "I don't give a crap . . ." statement.
>
> chujoeI think that's been a good discussion, too. You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?
--
> 5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked.
No one *has* to help anyone else keep from being blocked. I haven't meant to imply that not jumping in means not caring. I do think it would feel more supportive here if people did try to help each other in this way. People are more likely to help friends than strangers, but it's nice to help strangers, too.
> > Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support.
>
> The discussion is about torture.
>
> Can you show us what you would say?
>
> fayeroeOne possibility might be:
> > I believe people are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. I believe they should at all times be humanely treated and protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I believe women should be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. I believe all people should be treated with the same consideration, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 1:37:07
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 0:24:40
> > If I were going to propose an ethics of posting at Psychobabble, it would involve, at least, two features: 1) No ad hominem attacks; 2) The requirement that one post in good faith. ... One would be considered to be posting in good faith by: A) observing the rule against ad hominem attacks, B) honestly trying to advance the discussion / argument toward greater understanding (this would include the current ban on wild over-generalizations), & C) being explicit when something someone posts pushes your buttons. In regard to this last point, one might say, for example, "That statement makes me angry," or "I can't help taking that statement personally," or even, perhaps, "I think that statement calls for an apology." (I'm uncertain about this last example.) Any of these responses gives the person addressed an opportunity to respond in a number of ways: With silence, which, while not ideal, would be considered acceptable; with clarification or apology, which would be the ideal; or with a screw-you statement, which would be evidence of bad faith. Finally, we might all try to be careful to be explicit when we are using sarcasm, irony, or other forms of expression that don't translate well from speech to print.
>
> Thanks for offering an alternative. I agree with your principles. Maybe an alternative to that last example might be:
>
> > > I'd appreciate an apology.
>
> > As an example of the sort of good faith discussion of a difficult subject, I'd point to the recent "toxic crap" thread on the Medication board. I think everyone behaved admirably there & I include Link's "I don't give a crap . . ." statement.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> I think that's been a good discussion, too. You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?
>
> --
>
> > 5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked.
>
> No one *has* to help anyone else keep from being blocked. I haven't meant to imply that not jumping in means not caring. I do think it would feel more supportive here if people did try to help each other in this way. People are more likely to help friends than strangers, but it's nice to help strangers, too.You always say "Would anyone be willing to try to show ______ how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,"
How many posters have stated (to you) that they feel guilted or shamed when you ask them into helping someone? "You may have the power" .......Lots of people come here because they either don't have power or they believe that they dont have it. . I know that I've had an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I read that.
>
> > > Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support.
> >
> > The discussion is about torture.
> >
> > Can you show us what you would say?
> >
> > fayeroe
>
> One possibility might be:
>
> > > I believe people are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. I believe they should at all times be humanely treated and protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I believe women should be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. I believe all people should be treated with the same consideration, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.I am only interested in a statement about torture. . Just a statement about "torture" as in what we've learned about our government in the last few years. I guess I should have been more specific.
>
> Bob
Posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 6:40:01
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 0:24:40
>>I think that's been a good discussion, too. You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?<<
I suppose it comes close, but it also tells the truth, which is that Link, as he put it later, was not looking for suggestions. Notice, to, how the other discussants just rolled with Link's statement and kept advancing the discussion. Context is important -- if someone makes an unhelpful remark but the other people in the discussion continue the thread w/o taking the bait, I would think it best to just let it be.
Posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 8:03:29
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 6:40:01
Bob, Link did not write, "I don't give a crap what you think." He wrote, "I don't give a crap what people on this board think." There is a pretty difference between those two statement, I think.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 10:21:14
In reply to Re: the system here » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 1:37:07
> > > If I were going to propose an ethics of posting at Psychobabble, it would involve, at least, two features: 1) No ad hominem attacks; 2) The requirement that one post in good faith. ... One would be considered to be posting in good faith by: A) observing the rule against ad hominem attacks, B) honestly trying to advance the discussion / argument toward greater understanding (this would include the current ban on wild over-generalizations), & C) being explicit when something someone posts pushes your buttons. In regard to this last point, one might say, for example, "That statement makes me angry," or "I can't help taking that statement personally," or even, perhaps, "I think that statement calls for an apology." (I'm uncertain about this last example.) Any of these responses gives the person addressed an opportunity to respond in a number of ways: With silence, which, while not ideal, would be considered acceptable; with clarification or apology, which would be the ideal; or with a screw-you statement, which would be evidence of bad faith. Finally, we might all try to be careful to be explicit when we are using sarcasm, irony, or other forms of expression that don't translate well from speech to print.
> >
> > Thanks for offering an alternative. I agree with your principles. Maybe an alternative to that last example might be:
> >
> > > > I'd appreciate an apology.
> >
> > > As an example of the sort of good faith discussion of a difficult subject, I'd point to the recent "toxic crap" thread on the Medication board. I think everyone behaved admirably there & I include Link's "I don't give a crap . . ." statement.
> > >
> > > chujoe
> >
> > I think that's been a good discussion, too. You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > 5. I want to speak to the idea that the posters have to help someone keep from being blocked. I am responsible for what I say here. Poster A is responsible for what she says. I hardly ever see poster A post and I have no idea who she is. I do not like being told that she will get blocked/PBC if I don't help her. Not jumping in doesn't mean (as you say repeatedly) that I don't care if she is blocked.
> >
> > No one *has* to help anyone else keep from being blocked. I haven't meant to imply that not jumping in means not caring. I do think it would feel more supportive here if people did try to help each other in this way. People are more likely to help friends than strangers, but it's nice to help strangers, too.
>
> You always say "Would anyone be willing to try to show ______ how she might rephrase the above or to encourage her to apologize? You may have the power to help her avoid being blocked again. Thanks,"
>
> How many posters have stated (to you) that they feel guilted or shamed when you ask them into helping someone? "You may have the power" .......Lots of people come here because they either don't have power or they believe that they dont have it. . I know that I've had an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I read that.
>
> >
> > > > Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support.
> > >
> > > The discussion is about torture.
> > >
> > > Can you show us what you would say?
> > >
> > > fayeroe
> >
> > One possibility might be:
> >
> > > > I believe people are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. I believe they should at all times be humanely treated and protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I believe women should be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. I believe all people should be treated with the same consideration, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
>
> I am only interested in a statement about torture. . Just a statement about "torture" as in what we've learned about our government in the last few years. I guess I should have been more specific.
> >
> > Bob
>
Shaking head.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 10:49:41
In reply to Follow-up to previous post, posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 8:03:29
> How many posters have stated (to you) that they feel guilted or shamed when you ask them into helping someone? "You may have the power" .......Lots of people come here because they either don't have power or they believe that they dont have it. . I know that I've had an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I read that.
I know some people feel powerless. Here, anyway, they may have more power than they realize. Regarding guilt and shame, violette posted an interesting link earlier:
> > Replace shame with mature guilt. Guilt has often received bad press, and well it should--if, and only if, you are talking about neurotic guilt--guilt that self-flagellates and changes nothing. If you are talking about mature guilt, then guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. Shame, on the other hand comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do. To illustrate: John feels shame that he is not the sort of person who can ever excel at his work. Whatever happens, a demotion, a "blowing-out" by his boss, he senses that this is because he is "basically inadequate," so he hangs his head and lowers his eyes and dampens his energy. Finding the "smarts" and the courage to re-evaluate himself as "guilty" of inertia and poor training, he begins to create and achieve goals that are possible for him. So if he sets certain standards, and then if he doesn't achieve them, he can rightly feel guilty that he is failing and can increase his efforts to succeed, or redefine his goals. He has moved into consciousness that his worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
>
> > http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.htmlhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951917.html
> > > > Instead of being negative about ideas you want to criticize, just be positive about alternative ideas you support.
> > >
> > > The discussion is about torture.
> > >
> > > Can you show us what you would say?
> >
> > One possibility might be:
> >
> > > > I believe people are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. I believe they should at all times be humanely treated and protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. I believe women should be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. I believe all people should be treated with the same consideration, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
>
> I am only interested in a statement about torture. . Just a statement about "torture" as in what we've learned about our government in the last few years.
>
> fayeroeI'm more interested in positive statements about what I support than in negative statements about what I don't. At the same time, if someone had a desire to be negative, I wouldn't consider it uncivil for them to post:
> > I oppose torture by our government.
--
> > You wouldn't consider "I don't give a crap what you think" a screw-you statement?
>
> I suppose it comes close, but it also tells the truth, which is that Link, as he put it later, was not looking for suggestions.I wish he'd simply chosen the language he used later to begin with. :-)
> Notice, to, how the other discussants just rolled with Link's statement and kept advancing the discussion. Context is important -- if someone makes an unhelpful remark but the other people in the discussion continue the thread w/o taking the bait, I would think it best to just let it be.
I agree, but a little bait can lead to more bait, and an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.
> Link did not write, "I don't give a crap what you think." He wrote, "I don't give a crap what people on this board think." There is a pretty difference between those two statement, I think.
>
> chujoeI agree, it could be considered a screw-all-of-you statement and not just a screw-you statement.
Bob
Posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 11:45:46
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 10:49:41
>>I agree, it could be considered a screw-all-of-you statement and not just a screw-you statement.<<
I actually read this as Link making a statement about himself more than about other people.
>>...a little bait can lead to more bait, and an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.<<
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I think some edginess ought to be allowed. Too often, the "prevention" does more harm to the discussion that a bit of irritable language. I privilege the discussion over any of its participants.
Posted by sigismund on July 27, 2010, at 14:37:44
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by chujoe on July 26, 2010, at 20:34:30
GWB helped me work through my hatred of Nixon.
Is that uncivil of me?
Posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 16:29:18
In reply to Re: the system here » chujoe, posted by sigismund on July 27, 2010, at 14:37:44
[sarcasm] When it comes to right wing presidents I'm an equal opportunity despiser. Why give up one lovely hatred when you can have two? [/sarcasm]
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 18:10:06
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by chujoe on July 27, 2010, at 11:45:46
> > a little bait can lead to more bait, and an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure
>
> I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I think some edginess ought to be allowed. Too often, the "prevention" does more harm to the discussion that a bit of irritable language.I agree, we may disagree on where exactly to draw the line.
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on August 1, 2010, at 18:38:24
In reply to Re: the system here » fayeroe, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 26, 2010, at 11:15:31
Posted by fayeroe on August 1, 2010, at 19:01:20
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2010, at 18:10:06
>
Bob, what DOES a face full of cat feel like? Is it furry? Is it warm? Do you hear a purr? Do you feel claws? Does it land on it's feet on your face like the urban legions says it can? Do you get fur in your mouth? Does the cat dander cause you any sneezing, itching, twitching and headaches? Do you have to have a professional remove said cat from your face?Do you like it?
I forgot to ask if your rabies shots are up to date.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2011, at 17:33:45
In reply to corrected link- Lou's response to {your system}-, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:46:10
> > > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> > >
> > > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> > >
> > > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> > [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> > That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> > Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> > Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> > History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> > Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> > Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> > You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> corrected:
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.htmlMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder policy, the above.
There is a question from me concerning responsibility.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:59:24
In reply to Lou's reminder-thaychrhspon?, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2011, at 17:33:45
> > > > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> > > >
> > > > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> > > [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> > > That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> > > Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> > > Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> > > History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> > > Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> > > Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> > > You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > corrected:
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder policy, the above.
> There is a question from me concerning responsibility.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above about responsibility is outstanding.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2012, at 5:56:57
In reply to Lou's reminder-rhespon, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:59:24
> > > > > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> > > > [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> > > > That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> > > > Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> > > > Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> > > > History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> > > > Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> > > > Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> > > > You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > corrected:
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordance with your reminder policy, the above.
> > There is a question from me concerning responsibility.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above about responsibility is outstanding.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,'
In regards to your [policy to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
This is the end of the 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.