![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 9:20:43
In reply to Do you like me? (got long) » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 1:08:58
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
[...Could Dr. Hsiung's post in question here have any potential for anyone to think that he is suggesting to either one poster or the general forum that they do not read a post that has my name as the poster?...]
[...Could you resaerch the causes of the Nazi Holocaust and see how boycotting jewish businesses fosterd to stigmatise jews and arrouse hatred toward them?...]
[...could you look at the following link...?]
Lou
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/11286.htm
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 10:35:01
In reply to Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
Hi Lou,
> It has been asked in some way here to clarify in some way what this thread is about.
> The statement by Dr. Hsiung to the poster about the poster's post to me is:
> [...more conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read}...]
> In my opinion,I feel that there is the potential for one to think after reading that, that there is a {risk}of replying in an uncivil manner to reading either my posts or all posts here. If so, could there be the potential for some others to think that the risk be different if they are replying to my posts, verses all the rest of the posts? If so, then what ,in your opinion, is there in the statement by Dr. Hsiung that {rules out that potential} for some others to think that the risk is not only spacific to my posts?
> Another aspect is if the post by Dr. Hsiung is if it is a suggeation or a reminder or something else. I ask, does it matter? If so, could you clarify the difference as to if it does matter?
> Another aspect is that Dr. Hsiung did modify his statement. I ask, does Dr. Hsiung's change to what he wrote in the first place alter the meaning of his original statement? If so, could you clarify why it does?
> Now if Dr. Hsiung is saying that the poster has the alternative to not read in the first place, then how could anyone take that position to not read, what I write, if I do not give in the subject line as to what I would be writing about, unless it is only my name that is the name of the poster of the post? I ask you, would not one have to click on my post, and read it, to know what it is about, since I generally only put in the subject line who I am responding or replying to and a code that is for my purposes to use to go back to the post if needed?This does indeed seem to be a summary of the issues you've raised. I think I've replied to all of them and so I don't think there's anything I can add to what I've already said, except to mention that I don't think there's any substantial difference between referring to Dr Bob's remarks as 'suggestion' or 'reminder'. In my view, the result is the same in practice: it comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person’s posts if he/she is likely to reply in an uncivil manner.
And again, I would like to emphasise that, in my view, it’s not your posts in particular that are at issue here. My posts, or anyone else’s, might be best unread by anyone who finds it difficult to respond without being uncivil.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
In reply to Re: Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 10:35:01
Tamar,
You wrote,[...in my view...Dr. Bob's remarks...comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person's posts if he/she is likely to reply in am uncivil manner...].
I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?
B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?
C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
2. when you read someone's posts here, that if you have a strong feeling against that person's name being the poster, could you remember that the guidlines of the forum ask you to respect the views of others here even if they are different from yours?...].
3. please do not boycott any poster's posts here, for they could contain support or education to you, unbeknowing to you, unless you read them...]
4. if you see a poster's name as the poster, that you think will have a content that will upset you in some way, before you reply, could you read it several times so that if you have a conclusion about what is written that could trigger something in you, that you babblemail the poster and have a discussion about it off-board so that you do not post something that is not acceptable here?
5. other good and just alternatives to suggesting that one [...not read...].
Lou
Posted by portage on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:24
In reply to Lou's reply to portage-itrstedpstr » portage, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 8:42:27
> portage,
> You wrote,[...I think that you are interesting...].
> Could you specify what the things are that you think are interesting?
> LouSure Lou, I'll do my best, if that will make you happy.
..How to define interesting. You are a curiosity. I want to know more about you. That's the best I can do.from portage
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:47
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
Hi Lou,
I’ve thought about your questions and here are my answers:
> You wrote,[...in my view...Dr. Bob's remarks...comes to the attention of the reader that he/she may choose not to read a person's posts if he/she is likely to reply in am uncivil manner...].
> I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
> A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?I think it is civil. It doesn’t seem rude to me. It doesn’t seem to accuse anyone of anything or to put anyone down.
> B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?
Probably by trial and error, I would think. Errors would likely be met with a PBC!
> C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
> 1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
> 2. when you read someone's posts here, that if you have a strong feeling against that person's name being the poster, could you remember that the guidlines of the forum ask you to respect the views of others here even if they are different from yours?...].
> 3. please do not boycott any poster's posts here, for they could contain support or education to you, unbeknowing to you, unless you read them...]
> 4. if you see a poster's name as the poster, that you think will have a content that will upset you in some way, before you reply, could you read it several times so that if you have a conclusion about what is written that could trigger something in you, that you babblemail the poster and have a discussion about it off-board so that you do not post something that is not acceptable here?
> 5. other good and just alternatives to suggesting that one [...not read...].I think you make a lot of good points here, particularly about encouraging discussion of differing views. So I agree with the sentiments you express.
Although I agree that your suggestions are useful, where I differ is that I still see a place for not reading posts. I know your point number 4 is a suggestion of a way to get around the trigger problem, but I find the difficulty with triggers is that once I’m triggered I lose all ability to think rationally. My response is very emotional when I’m triggered and I could in a blind rage post something to someone that I’d later regret.
So if I think something could trigger me, especially if I might respond in anger, I tend to feel it’s better to avoid the potential trigger rather than seek advice as to whether there is in fact a potential trigger. It’s not a terribly rational way to approach things, but that’s the nature of triggers, as far as I can tell.
I think it’s interesting that you use the word boycotting, because I don’t see it like that. I see not reading posts as self-censorship. I see it as a way of protecting myself from triggers. And it would also protect the other person from my rude response, which would be hurtful.
I think you are right that not reading posts might mean missing out on something educational or supportive. That’s a source of sadness to me. It is an unfortunate consequence of a measure that simultaneously protects the reader from triggers and protects the poster from the reader’s uncivil response. I suppose that’s why ultimately I see it as self-censorship rather than boycotting. To me, boycotting is an action taken against a person or organisation, whereas self-censorship is an action taken to protect oneself.
I hope that makes sense.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by AuntieMel on July 14, 2005, at 12:49:44
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntiMel-difpots » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 8:55:04
Here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001231/msgs/50808.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19990401/msgs/4647.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/373760.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:38:08
In reply to Sure Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 14, 2005, at 12:49:44
> Here:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001231/msgs/50808.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19990401/msgs/4647.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/373760.html
>AM,
Thank you for the links. However, I think that there are differences.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:40:29
In reply to Re: Portage's reply to Lou-sfgdjkher, posted by portage on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:24
portage,
You wrote,[...I want to know more about you...]
What would you like to know?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:47:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
> I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
> A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?Yes, Lou, it would be civil for Dr Hsiung to suggest that some people not read posts written by some other people. It would even be civil for Dr Hsiung to suggest that certain specific people here not read *your* posts if they are so upset by them that they may not be able to respond within the civility guidelines of this site.
But, Lou? That's not what Dr Bob did. Dr Bob reminded someone that, if certain posts are likely to upset him/her, he/she *does not have to read them.* That's a good reminder, in my opinion.
And Lou? Here's something I really hope that you'll consider when you read this: Dr Bob was not suggesting that *anyone* here boycott any particular poster. Dr Bob was suggesting that someone might be able to avoid emotional turmoil, hurt feelings, worsening symptoms of their disorder, upset, etc, by not reading certain posts that might be predicably triggering. Remember, Lou, your actions -- just like everyone else's -- have consequences. Sometimes, Lou, the consequences of your actions might just be deeply upsetting for someone else. Has that ever entered your mind?
> B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?That, Lou, will be different for every person in the world. We could probably all make some suggestions, but what works for one person won't necessarily work for someone else. That's what the phrase "Your mileage will vary" is all about. There are no hard and fast rules to apply.
> C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
> 1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
> 2. when you read someone's posts here,
> 3. please do not boycott any poster's posts
> 4. if you see a poster's name as the poster,
> 5. other good and just alternatives
> Lou
>No, Lou, I don't think that Dr Bob's suggestion could have been replaced by any of your alternatives. You want to know why? Because what Dr Bob wrote was clear, concise, and not all that open to misunderstanding or interpretation. That counts, for an administrator. Sometimes, adding in all the specifiers and qualifiers that might make you satisfied would destroy the meaning of what one wanted to communicate. And you know what else? Even if one were to add in every modifier, qualifier, and specifier that one could think of, someone who was intent on finding a flaw could still do so.
I hope I'll be able to stay out of this after saying this, Lou. This is something I'm saying as one person, one human being, to another -- from me to you, Lou, personally:
Some of the things you have written, in this thread and in others, has very deeply offended me, and some of it has hurt my feelings. That may not be what you intend, Lou, in your posts, but it is one of the consequences of your actions. You may have noticed that, despite my hurt or offended feelings, I have not requested that you cease to express yourself. The word that best describes the reason I have not done so is "RESPECT." I respect your right to express yourself, so I don't tell you that you're wrong to do so; I don't ask you to stop; I don't complain to Dr Bob that your words have hurt me, or caused offense, or damaged me in some other way. That's because I respect the right of individuals to express their views, without imposing the standards of others to that expression.
By my actions, I have shown you respect, Lou. I am asking you to consider, when posting your myriad "requests for determination", whether doing so is respectful to others here.
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:56:04
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dif » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:38:08
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/373760.html
> >
>
> AM,
> Thank you for the links. However, I think that there are differences.
> Lou
>I would like to know where you see the difference between what Dr Bob wrote in the thread you're questioning and in the post referenced above?
"> I don't think "Don't read posts by posters that bother you" is good universal advice. Perhaps you should change it a bit.
It's just an alternative approach to keep in mind? I guess a little more flexible would be: It may be better sometimes not to read posts by certain posters.
Bob "
That sounds like an awfully general suggestion there -- "sometimes" it "might" be better not to read posts by certain posters? What hidden message can be found in that?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:47
Tamar,
You wrote, [...I see it as {self-censorship}...].
I am requesting that others here that are interested in posting to this thread to consider if {self-censorship} can be {suggested} by the host-moderator of a mental-health community, or if self-censorship needs to be voluntary, without administrative suggestion, to really be considered as self-censorship.
I am also requesting that others here that are interested in replying to this thread to consider the weight of a suggestion by the authority host-moderator of a mental-health forum to [...do not read...] and its possible implications as that the posts suggested to not read could cause the reader to act in an uncivil manner. Also, I am asking others here to consider if it is justifiable for anyone of a mental- health community to associate in any way to a poster that another poster's post could cause them some type of emotional state as to act in an uncivil manner.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-slfcnsr? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?
B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 14:29:20
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
> I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
> A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?Maybe this is irrelevant, but you've quoted another poster to these boards, Lou, rather than Dr Bob. Tamar wrote what you're quoting. Or are you asking whether we think that Tamar is trying to say that people here need protection from you?
> B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?
> LouLou, has it crossed your mind that some people here really do need to be protected from you? That some people on these boards -- boards set up for people with varying mental and emotional disorders, let's not forget -- might be so psychologically fragile, so emotionally vulnerable, that they do need to be protected from reading some of what you write?
Let me say something here that is not strictly relevant to this particular thread, although you did bring it up in one post here: I, personally, am very deeply offended and upset when you make an analogy between what happens on this board and what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. That bothers me a very, very great deal, for very personal reasons, Lou. I find it profoundly disrespectful, and when I read the posts in which you make those analogies, Lou, I experience both rage and grief: rage, because you would dishonor so many people who suffered so much beyond human imagination by equating that suffering with anything that is merely written; and grief for all the people I grew up with and loved and whose memories I still love and cherish WHO ACTUALLY SUFFERED THAT NIGHTMARE!
Lou, do you really think that intentions do not matter? Sure, we all know which road uses good intentions as paving materials, but Lou? I've been part of this community for seven years now, and I've only seen a handful of people here who INTENTIONALLY write something hurtful.
Let me ask you this, Lou: when you write your analogies about the Holocaust, do you INTEND to cause me pain?
Or do you think that I should ask Dr Bob to look at what you've written and see if he should slap your wrist for it?
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 14:57:21
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-slfcnsr? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
Hi Lou,
> You wrote, [...I see it as {self-censorship}...].
> I am requesting that others here that are interested in posting to this thread to consider if {self-censorship} can be {suggested} by the host-moderator of a mental-health community, or if self-censorship needs to be voluntary, without administrative suggestion, to really be considered as self-censorship.I think it is voluntary even if it’s suggested by Dr Bob. He’s not insisting on anything, so it remains a matter for the reader to decide whether to censor himself/herself.
> I am also requesting that others here that are interested in replying to this thread to consider the weight of a suggestion by the authority host-moderator of a mental-health forum to [...do not read...] and its possible implications as that the posts suggested to not read could cause the reader to act in an uncivil manner.
I don’t know how much weight the suggestion can carry. It’s not a command and even if it were I don’t know whether it would be enforceable. I don’t know how the software works, but I doubt Dr Bob can prevent people reading posts from particular posters. I think it is likely that it could be understood as a good piece of advice to anyone who has trouble keeping their responses to certain posters within the civility guidelines.
> Also, I am asking others here to consider if it is justifiable for anyone of a mental- health community to associate in any way to a poster that another poster's post could cause them some type of emotional state as to act in an uncivil manner.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. May I rephrase? It seems to me that you’re asking whether it is justifiable for Dr Bob (or me or anyone else here) to suggest to a member of the community that someone’s posts could trigger them and then they might respond in an uncivil manner.
If that’s your question, this is my answer: I think it is justifiable for anyone in the community (including Dr Bob) to suggest that a reader might consider whether a certain person’s posts are triggering them, and whether it might be best not to read posts that might trigger them to the extent that they reply in an uncivil manner. And that might involve not reading a particular person’s posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 15:19:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:47:13
Friends, ,
It is written here,[...Dr. Bob reminded someone...*does not have to read them*...].
I am requesting that if you are going to post to this thread that you consider what Dr. Hsiung wrote in the following and ask yourself if there is a difference from what is written here.
[...Sometimes it is more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply or even {not to read} in the first place...].
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 16:24:41
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
Hi Lou,
> It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
> I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
> A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?
> B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?Sorry if I didn’t explain myself clearly. I hope these answers will help:
A. I don’t think so. However:
B. I do think that people might want to protect themselves from the discomfort of their emotional reactions to the things that are triggered when they read aspects of posts that trigger them.Here’s an example. I didn’t reply to your post about the Nazis boycotting Jewish businesses because when I read your post I interpreted it as making a comparison between posting strategies on Babble and Nazi strategies against Jewish people. That might not have been what you intended, but that was how I read it.
I am not ignorant about the strategies the Nazis used against Jewish people. I knew about the boycotting of Jewish businesses, and other strategies. The thought that posting strategies on Babble could be compared with the abomination of the Holocaust was a thought I found very emotionally troubling. I don’t know if you intended me to have that thought, but I had it anyway. I felt shocked and outraged when I thought of a comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany.
I felt especially shocked because I do not believe that members of this community are stigmatizing other members on the basis of religious or cultural identity. Therefore I felt that the comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany was inappropriate. I realise, of course, that the comparison was based on my interpretation of your post, and that you did not explicitly make that comparison. However, those were my thoughts and feelings on reading your post, whether or not you intended me to have them.
So I decided not to reply because I thought my reply might transgress the civility guidelines.
At that point I could have thought that your future posts had the potential to trigger me. I could have decided to stop reading your posts for a while until I felt less emotionally vulnerable.
If I’d made that decision it would have been to protect myself from the sorts of feelings I experienced when I read your post about the boycott of Jewish businesses. I don’t believe I need any protection from you as a person.
Of course, I could also have asked you to clarify what you were driving at, but at the time I read the post I was feeling too emotional to think of asking you that. My own interpretation was so emotionally disturbing that I wasn’t able to think rationally about the possibility of alternative interpretations.
I realise I’ve been quite forthright here, and I hope you understand that it’s in the interests of communication. I hope you don’t mind that I picked your own post as an example; I chose it only because it was in this same thread.
For what it’s worth, my feelings and thoughts about the post have changed a little. I am still upset at the idea of a comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany, even though that comparison may be one of my own making. However, I am also concerned at the idea that you might feel stigmatized on the basis of your religious or cultural identity. I realise that this idea too may be one of my own making, and perhaps you do not feel stigmatized. If you are willing to talk about your feelings, I’d be interested to hear what you have to say.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 16:44:14
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-msqut?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 15:19:04
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 16:47:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 16:24:41
Tamar,
You wrote,[...concerned that you may feel stigmatized...].
Here is Dr. Hsiung's statement in question
[...sometimes it is more conducive to "civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply, or even not to read in the first place...].
This was written to a poster that read my post.
I feel that there is the potential for some others to think that there is the potential for the statement in question to mean that ;
A. People here will be more civil if they,[...not read in the first place...]. Do you see any potential for any acssociation with "civic harmony and welfare" with ,perhaps, reading what I post?
Now the Nazis stood in front of the stores owned by jews and said [...don't buy from them...]. I have nothing to sell so no one can say don't by from Lou Pilder here. But the only thing that I do have here is what I write here. [...not to read in the firat place...]? Do you think that there is not the potential for some oehters her to think that they could be be harmed by reading Lou's posts here after reading Dr. Hsiung's statement in question?
Lou
Posted by Nickengland on July 14, 2005, at 16:49:20
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 9:40:31
>Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place.
>Bob
Hello Lou,
From reading all the posts you have written regarding this matter I see that you feel there is a potential that in fact this was directly aimed at you etc etc etc (I've read the whole thread)
I personally think perhaps both aspects (your point of view and Dr Bob's point of view are correct) of this whole thread. Your point of view being, the fact that maybe indirectly this message was about you, as well as being in a general format.
When Dr Bob said
>Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place.
I can understand this completely. The reason being from when we had our last little discussion....You suggested to me that I look through the archives to see who actually supports your posts. This I did. I actually only turned up a small number of posts through the google search, so I looked through the archives from the dated topics at the top of the pages.
If I remember correctly I was looking back about 2-3 years ago. Maybe 2002 to be correct when you first actually joined under the name of Lou Pilder and lou pilder without the capitals. (if I remember correctly)
I read your very first posts and many, many more after that with great interest. I saw all of the information about how people have to unlock the "7 gates" and how you think psychiatric drugs are evil. The way you think through the "sounds of music" and that you are a former maths teacher. I also read how you used to talk about religion quite alot of the time in soical/babble and so because of your posts (i think) this is the reason why the "faith" board was opened.
You used to post quite abit in babble/medications back then. Now back at time you used to get blocked quite abit yourself and recieve a fair few PBC's....
Now at the same time back then and up until this present day...There have been a very large amount of people who have recieved PBC because they have spoken/replied to your posts. People (from what I have seen and read) have also left babble and been blocked who engaged in discussion with you.
Perhaps because there are a high volume of people, who when reply to your messages, or get involved in a discussion with yourself - a large amount of these people have ended up with a PBC and so have not been able to remain civil.
So in conclusion when Dr Bob said what he did, maybe he was going on past experience. To prevent more people getting PBC's and perhaps blocks. In this way he was promoting civility, I think.
Kind regards
Nick
Ps If you want me to post any archives to support what I have said, I will be willing to do that.
Posted by thuso on July 14, 2005, at 16:56:29
In reply to Where there's life, there's potential » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 14:29:20
> Let me say something here that is not strictly relevant to this particular thread, although you did bring it up in one post here: I, personally, am very deeply offended and upset when you make an analogy between what happens on this board and what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. That bothers me a very, very great deal, for very personal reasons, Lou. I find it profoundly disrespectful, and when I read the posts in which you make those analogies, Lou, I experience both rage and grief: rage, because you would dishonor so many people who suffered so much beyond human imagination by equating that suffering with anything that is merely written; and grief for all the people I grew up with and loved and whose memories I still love and cherish WHO ACTUALLY SUFFERED THAT NIGHTMARE!
>Thank you Racer for bringing this up! It's also been making me mad. I've been following this thread, but as soon as I see Lou write Holocaust or or Nazi in his post, I skip it and go to the next one. Otherwise, I'd be starting a fight because it's been bugging me soooooo much. I am extremely offended and annoyed by his comparisons. It's safer for me not to read a post than to read it and then react in the wrong way.
Lou...the way some posts by you in this thread have caused me to react is exactly why Dr. Bob's suggestion was right on. He wasn't referring to you specifically when he wrote that, but in this case I'm able to apply his advice. In fact, I skip posts whenever I see certain words that I know will bring out the fighter in me, so don't think I'm doing this to only you. It's not a personal thing.
But I do have one question Lou. Why have you not been responding to Racer in his last few posts? He's asked you some specific questions and you have yet to respond to one of them. I'm requesting that you do answer him. Will you please do that? :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 19:20:21
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pic, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 9:20:43
> Friends,
> I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
> [...Could Dr. Hsiung's post in question here have any potential for anyone to think that he is suggesting to either one poster or the general forum that they do not read a post that has my name as the poster?...]
> [...Could you resaerch the causes of the Nazi Holocaust and see how boycotting jewish businesses fosterd to stigmatise jews and arrouse hatred toward them?...]
> [...could you look at the following link...?]
> Lou
> http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/11286.htmFriends,
There are things written in this thread about my post above.
Let us look at the aspects of my post.
First, I request that those that are reading this thread to consider what I wrote in the post. The reason for my request for those who are reading this thread to {consider} what I write in the post is so that if they post, they will have that imfomation to take into consideration in their post here.
There are two considerations offerred by me. One is a request if you could do research in relation to the Nazi Holocaust in relation to the Nazis initiating the boycott of jewish businesses and if that fosterd to stigmatize jews and arrouse hatrd toward them.
There was a picture offered to show that this was indeed a historical event, not to be doubted. I often present this type of post to be included if anyone here promulgates what is called,{Holocaust Denial}.
It is not my intention to make any type of case that DR. Hsiung's statement in question is to be compared to the Nazis. On the contrary, for my post was intended to offer education as to the cause of the Nazi Holocaust so that we could have a civil discussion and perhaps use this administrative forum to discuss relevant issues an relation to the improvment of the community.
I feel that if we have a knowlege of the causes of the Nazi Holocaust, that that could be good for the community as a whole.
I am not trying to compare anything with this community, but to foster education that could have the potntial to be productive.
I am requesting that anyone that has made ststements that I am comparing in some way Nazis with anything here, to re read my post above.
Lou
Posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:10:17
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-didhe?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 19:20:21
As I recall Lou, you actually, rightfully criticized a comparison between what happens here and the holocaust. That was the post I'd mentioned before, where you and Noa helped me see things in a different way, when at first I thought you were over reacting.
I'll see if I can find a link to it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 20:18:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-didhe? » Lou Pilder, posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:10:17
gabbi,
Thank you for remembering that I have in the past written against comparing to the Nazis. You see, what you have done is open up the fact that I am only wanting to have others here have a knowlege of {the causes of the holocaut}, not to devalue the suffereings of those that were the outlet of the Nazi ideology. You know that I have in the past objected to any devaluing of peoples here.
Thank you for your effort here in my behalf.
Best wishes to you all,
Lou
Posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:30:40
In reply to Lou's thanks to gabbi-wldn » gabbii, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 20:18:35
> gabbi,
> Thank you for remembering that I have in the past written against comparing to the Nazis. You see, what you have done is open up the fact that I am only wanting to have others here have a knowlege of {the causes of the holocaut}, not to devalue the suffereings of those that were the outlet of the Nazi ideology. You know that I have in the past objected to any devaluing of peoples here.
> Thank you for your effort here in my behalf.Your welcome Lou.
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 20:38:08
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-stig? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 16:47:47
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...concerned that you may feel stigmatized...].
> Here is Dr. Hsiung's statement in question
> [...sometimes it is more conducive to "civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply, or even not to read in the first place...].
> This was written to a poster that read my post.
> I feel that there is the potential for some others to think that there is the potential for the statement in question to mean that ;
> A. People here will be more civil if they,[...not read in the first place...]. Do you see any potential for any acssociation with "civic harmony and welfare" with ,perhaps, reading what I post?
> Now the Nazis stood in front of the stores owned by jews and said [...don't buy from them...]. I have nothing to sell so no one can say don't by from Lou Pilder here. But the only thing that I do have here is what I write here. [...not to read in the firat place...]? Do you think that there is not the potential for some oehters her to think that they could be be harmed by reading Lou's posts here after reading Dr. Hsiung's statement in question?I think the crucial difference is that the Nazis instigated a boycott of Jewish businesses BECAUSE they were Jewish. If someone suggested that your posts shouldn’t be read because of your religious or cultural identity then that would clearly be uncivil and in my view quite wrong.
But that’s not what’s happening here. In this case we’re talking about the possibility of not reading posts if reading might lead to an uncivil response. It’s not personal and has nothing to do with anyone’s religious or cultural identity.
The issue of civic harmony and welfare is relevant because an uncivil response to your posts can be distressing to others in the community at Babble as well as to you.
I don’t think people are likely to think anyone could be harmed by reading your posts, though they might think that there’s a possibility that some of your posts can elicit a strong emotional reaction in some people.
Thanks for clarifying that you were not intending to compare Babble to the Nazis. I’m still not precisely clear what aspect of the boycott of Jewish businesses you wanted to discuss with reference to administrative issues at Babble. Perhaps something about social exclusion? I don’t see quite how it fits in, but if you expand a little perhaps that will help.
Having said that, I won’t be able to participate in any ongoing discussion at the moment because I’m about to going on holiday for ten days. I wanted to mention that, because I won’t have computer access, and I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your posts! I’ll be interested to see what’s happened when I get back.
Best wishes,
Tamar
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.