![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:22:25
In reply to Re: I'm sure hoping » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:19:53
But thanks for worrying.
I thought I was validating Lou's general concerns about posts here on Babble. I was not referring to any specific post. I probably should have made that more clear since I was responding on a thread that did begin about a specific post.
Thanks for asking.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 13:30:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...you are worried about someone experiancing antisemitic feelings...].
The aspect of those type of posts is that it is my concern that {there could be the potential, IMO, for the post to arrouse antisemitic feelings.}
There are many examples here that I have requested for the administration to address.
OTOH, if I am not allowed to request on the board if a post in the future is from a "3", and let's say Dr. Hsiung does not reply to me in an email request to him, then what can I do then, in your opinion?
And could you write your opinion of if the rule made by Dr. Hsiung about the "3" is supportive?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
In reply to It was a generalization » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:22:25
I know yours was a generalization. I was talking about the post you were answering.
But - if a person were really making those type remarks it is highly unlikely that Dr. Bob would consider them civil in the first place so it's a non-issue as far as I can see.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:02:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
>
> And just to add to the conversation, it's up to each individual poster to cope with their own unique reactions to posts.I don't think that applies to this board at all. If it were up to each poster to cope with their own response we wouldn't have such strict 'civility rules.' Or did I miss something?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Friends,
It is written here with many offered links that there are 3 requests by me that have been allowed to be acceptable here.
I am having trouble navigating all the offered links to determine what the original posts that make up the 3 are.
I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:11:09
In reply to Lou's response gg's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
> Friends,
> It is written here with many offered links that there are 3 requests by me that have been allowed to be acceptable here.
> I am having trouble navigating all the offered links to determine what the original posts that make up the 3 are.
> I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
> LouFriends,
when you click on the second offere link , a post by Nikki comes up. Could anyone clarify how is that a part of the "3" ?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:33:37
In reply to Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
> I know yours was a generalization. I was talking about the post you were answering.
>
> But - if a person were really making those type remarks it is highly unlikely that Dr. Bob would consider them civil in the first place so it's a non-issue as far as I can see.Friends,
It is written above about [...those type of remarks...highly unlikely that Dr.Bob...it's a non issue...].
I am requesting that if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread that you ask yourself the following:
A. What could be in a statement that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
B. Could a statement that writes that [...the only way to the Father is through Jesus...]have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings? If not, could you clarify why it could not?
C. Could a statement that wrote epithets about jews have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
D. Could a statement that spoke to jewish ancestry, in a manner of concern to jews, have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
E. Could a statement that depicted the religious leaders of ancient Israel as hypocrites have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
F. Could a statement that depicted the God of the Jews as cantankerous and vengfull arrouse antisemitic feelings?
G. Could a statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings be allowed to be posted here because it is part of the official verses of a poster's church here? If so, could a supremist group post their doctrins here, such as the Aryan Nation or could someone post a link to the web site of Randy Crow?
H. Can a statement be posted here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitc feelings because it is in the Bible? If so, then could you clarify how this could be if there is a rule here that writes that even if one quotes another , that does not protect an uncivil statement?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:06:41
In reply to Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
Ahhh, I re-read your message more carefully and I get it. And I agree.
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthefrst, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:33:37
Lou,
How on earth has anti-semetism come into the conversation?
Has *anything* I have said been anti-semetic? In any way?
Do you know it is quite distressing to have it bought into a conversation about my posts?
Can I ask you, please, to refrain from this whole discussion into my posts please? Just wait till Dr Bob cmes and see what he has to say. In the mean time, please, I ask, stop posting about my two posts.
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:18:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » gardenergirl, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:02:27
>
> >
> > And just to add to the conversation, it's up to each individual poster to cope with their own unique reactions to posts.
>
> I don't think that applies to this board at all. If it were up to each poster to cope with their own response we wouldn't have such strict 'civility rules.' Or did I miss something?I think it's an individual's responsibility to cope with their own feelings. No one can "cope" for you. But that doesn't preclude Dr. Bob from placing limits on the content of material which others might have stronger reactions to based on general and common experience, conventional wisdom, and/or any other basis for this he decides to use.
I suppose I said what I did as a reaction to the suggestion that certain types of posts might arouse certain feelings. It's my belief that those feelings cannot be aroused if they don't exist in the person to begin with. And if they do exist, they do. So while I agree that rules to limit offensive or hurtful content are useful for keeping this a generally safe place, I also think that we can't be protected from any potential threat, because our reactions are uniquely our own. The only way I can see to eliminate any and all potential threat to aroused feelings of any kind would be to not allow any posting. Heck, even the tele-tubbies aroused something in Pat Buchanan, wasn't it? Or that other guy...I can see his face.....ah, whatever.
There must be a good balance to personal responsiblity for feelings and protecting feelings somehow. Right now it appears the balance is too far into the protective side for many folks' tastes and not enough for others. Probably can't get it "just right" for everyone, darn those bears.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:21:51
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthe » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
I think I may have brought it into the thread as a hypothetical in making a point. I wasn't thinking, and I am in no way saying that you or your posts are anti-semitic.
(slaps head with a big d'oh!)
Sorry for my lousy timing and insensitivity.
(((Nikki)))
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 15:24:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthe » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
Friends,
It is asked here how antisemitism came into this thread in discussion.
Well, could this be the post?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537460.html
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:32:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:33:39
In reply to Lou's response gg's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
> I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
> LouTaken from Mark H’s original post, which Dr. Bob quoted in reply and Auntie Mel quoted in this thread.
>Here are some of Lou's requests for determination of Nikki's posts in the last couple of months:
>Request number 1
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
and Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407797.htmlRequest number 2
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
and Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/409053.htmlRequest number 3
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403854.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
And Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404343.html
There are no PBC’s to Nikki in the thread on 2000, which means that Dr. bob found the post in question as linked above acceptable.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:39:01
In reply to Lou's response gg's post- the 2end link, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:11:09
>> when you click on the second offere link , a post by Nikki comes up. Could anyone clarify how is that a part of the "3" ?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
Lou, when you click on the link you provided in this request http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html that is the post that comes up, suggesting that post number 408674 is the post you are questioning.gg
>
>
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 15:46:57
In reply to Sorry Nikki » NikkiT2, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:21:51
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537450.html
So you can stop smacking yourself
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 16:09:46
In reply to No, GG, you weren't first, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 15:46:57
I'm being a lazy reader today.
Thanks,
gg
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 4, 2005, at 16:18:40
In reply to The three requests, three posts, and Bob's respons » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:33:39
> Taken from Mark H’s original post, which Dr. Bob quoted in reply and Auntie Mel quoted in this thread.
>
> >Here are some of Lou's requests for determination of Nikki's posts in the last couple of months:
> >
>
> Request number 1
> Lou’s post
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
> Which asked about this post:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
> and Dr. Bob’s response
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407797.html
>
> Request number 2
> Lou’s post
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html
> Which asked about this post:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
> and Dr. Bob’s response
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/409053.html
>
> Request number 3
> Lou’s post
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403854.html
> Which asked about this post:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
> And Dr. Bob’s response
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404343.html
>
> There are no PBC’s to Nikki in the thread on 2000, which means that Dr. bob found the post in question as linked above acceptable.
>GG,
Could be wrong, but I think you could add this link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393755.html
about this post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393715.html
with this response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394383.htmlAnd this link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395314.html
about this post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395297.html
which seems to have gone without response.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 16:32:43
In reply to No, GG, you weren't first, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 15:46:57
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537450.html
>
> So you can stop smacking yourselfFriends,
The above writes that antisemitism came into this thread by way of the link offered.
That was a post by myself that was about the aspect in general about the restraints of the "3" rule.
In my post, I wrote in relation to antisemitism,[...{let's say}...]. I was using that aspect only as a n example of types of posts that I could want Dr. Hsiung to write a determination concerning those type. I could have used [...posts that have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me or another...] , or, [...posts that have the potential to accuse another...]. My post was not intended to be about a spacific post in this thread.
Lou
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:46:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » gabbii, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:18:30
Thanks GG. I see the difference in what you were referring to now.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 16:59:19
In reply to Re: Lou wants a link? » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:12:17
Friends,
It is written here,[....Nikki never said it was you...]. Nikki has written, [...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
Now my concern is to the identification of who the poster is that NikkiT2 is referring to that she wrote that someone here threatened to sue her for defamation.
Later in that thread, NikkiT2 writes something that I can not understand. She writes, [...Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here?...].
This is difficult for me to understand without having a URL to see. If NikkiT2 is saying that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation made the threat outside of what can be seen by me on this forum, then I asked if that could make a difference.
Then NikkiT2 makes it clear that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation [...was *from* someone here...].
Now if the threat to sue for defamation was made on another forum, could ther be a chance that the URL could be discovered?
If so, then the poster of such could be identified and the content of the post seen.
I am requesting that if you are going to either respond to this aspect, or if you are going to modify what you may have already posted, to read the folloowing link and take what is written in consideration if you are going to respond here.
The poster writes,[...he,(Lou), threatened me with legal action...].
I am not requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination because the post has already been in the past done, and I would like to go forward here.
but I am requesting that anyone post the URL where I wrote that I threatened Nikki with legal action, for I do not remember writing that.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/bebble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 17:01:47
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-wthdrw?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 9:23:19
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I am asking... you stop posting... about my posts...].
>
> B. I am requesting to see if you agree with me in respect that I feel that a request like the one in question is made here, could be better accepted if the poster also wrote that they withdraw the request to Dr. Hsiung that I am responding to.
>Lou, Nikki asked you please not to post about her post. She explained that she was feeling very vulnerable just now. And her original post does not mention you, does not reference any of your posts, might mean anyone else here, might only be hypothetical in nature.
Please consider Nikki's feelings. It may not have anything to do with any constitution ever written, but it is a very generous thing to do, and it is the type of behavior considered very moral in most religions.
What's more, Lou, it would be a Mitzvah.
Posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:03:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-ruloutLu? » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on August 4, 2005, at 9:02:55
Email me if I can help. I just saw this thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:05:24
In reply to Lou's response to AM's post-doyurembr?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 16:59:19
> Friends,
> It is written here,[....Nikki never said it was you...]. Nikki has written, [...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
> Now my concern is to the identification of who the poster is that NikkiT2 is referring to that she wrote that someone here threatened to sue her for defamation.
> Later in that thread, NikkiT2 writes something that I can not understand. She writes, [...Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here?...].
> This is difficult for me to understand without having a URL to see. If NikkiT2 is saying that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation made the threat outside of what can be seen by me on this forum, then I asked if that could make a difference.
> Then NikkiT2 makes it clear that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation [...was *from* someone here...].
> Now if the threat to sue for defamation was made on another forum, could ther be a chance that the URL could be discovered?
> If so, then the poster of such could be identified and the content of the post seen.
> I am requesting that if you are going to either respond to this aspect, or if you are going to modify what you may have already posted, to read the folloowing link and take what is written in consideration if you are going to respond here.
> The poster writes,[...he,(Lou), threatened me with legal action...].
> I am not requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination because the post has already been in the past done, and I would like to go forward here.
> but I am requesting that anyone post the URL where I wrote that I threatened Nikki with legal action, for I do not remember writing that.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/bebble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
The corrected link is:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 17:14:16
In reply to Lou's response AM' post-doyurembr?corected link, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:05:24
Lou, I think I posted this elsewhere, or maybe I just thought it really loud. But what prevents you from just asking Nikki directly if she is talking about you?
gg
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.