![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 58. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 10:36:17
Friends,
Please note that in my requests for a determination, I do not consider that a request is an {objection}, although Dr. Hsiung may, to what is requested to be determined as to the accepatbility or not in relation the guidlines of the forum. My requests, to me, are for me to have more definition and clarification about the rules so that more definition could be given to support, for I can not read the mind of the rule-maker,and IMO requesting definition as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not does not mean that it is a complaint, for the request is to see what the maker of the rule considers to be acceptable or not {in relation to his guidlines of his rules for the forum}. I can not know his or anyone else's mind without asking.
As to what he says is or is not acceptable, is what I am asking for, and it is my deep conviction that one should not be sanctioned for {not knowing} if the rule maker considers something acceptable or not about his rules.
Now the new rule ,as I see it, has not been put into the FAQ yet? If it becomes a rule, or has already been put in the FAQ, then it is concievable that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or be defaming to me, could be left on the board indefiniatly without my request for Dr. Hsiung to determine if the statement is acceptable or not, ever being seen on the forum to the members, am I right? This is because I can not, according to the new rule, email my concern as a request to him to see if the statement in question, in his thinking, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if the poster is one that I have made 3 requests to Dr. Hsiung in the past.
So concievably, {those posters} could post what could be seen to have the potential to accuse Jews and defame Jews without me being able to email Dr. Hsiung about it, because I have already used up my 3 requests according to the new rule. And looking at the new rule, is there anything given to continue to receive an answer to your request after the last opportunity which is to post a request to look at his email afte ,I guess, 5 days or so have already run and the statement has stood for that long without a reply?
I do not feel confortable with that kind of rule, for I do not think that it is supportive or civil to let stand for one minuet, yet 5 days or more any statements that could foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 12:57:52
In reply to Lou's views about the {3} rules, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 10:36:17
Friends,
I am requesting your consideration as to if you think that what I will propose here is or is not a better way to handle the situation that caused the {3} rule to arrise.
I think that it is supportive to have clarification of rules in any community and that the administrative forum is for that purpose. So Thay could mean that the administartive forum is not for support, but it could be.
SO I suggeat that my views be considerd as in the following.
If I was the rule-maker, I would not want to restrict inquieries for any reason, although others may think that restraning inquieries is supportive. But be it as it may be, and taking into account that some others may think that it is uncivil to request determination over 3 to one member, I propose a solution for a new rule.
My new rule would take into acct that the restricting of the number of requests to some people could be uin some way a time issue with them. I can understand that, but at the same time, I would not want to keep anyone's request from being heard. So If there are to be restrictions as to the number of requests, the the criteria that I suggeat for the request to {not count as being in the 3} to have the following critria.
A.That the request has a proper foundation only.
This means that if a request can show that there is more than one interpretation, that the request is to be honored. This can be done by posting a previous post to bring that out.
B. That if there is in the past practice a post that has been sanctioned, that that is a proper foundation to be honored.
C. If the post has {in the opinion of the poster}the potential to arrouse ill-will toward anyone or a group, that that could be a proper foundation to be honored.
now I agree that if a request id frivolous, that that is another thing. But at the same time, I do not consider any request to find out what the rule-maker thinking is, to be frivilous for the requester can not know what the thinking is of the rule maker without asking.
Now if someone had absolutly no foundation for the request, then I tend to lean that that request is also valid, and I know that others may disagree here with me, but the lacking of a foundation could show something that time and space do not allow me to go into here at the moment that could foster support.
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 13:02:05
In reply to Lou's views about the {3} rules, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 10:36:17
Lou, I won't claim that I could follow your entire post, so I won't try to answer the entire post. I will just point out that the new rule requiring complaints, objections, and "requests for determination" to be emailed rather than posted publicly was put in place to foster a safe and supportive environment here for ALL posters -- which actually does include you, even if you aren't seeing that right now.
In the past, some posters have felt very hurt when their posts were publicly held out as unacceptable. The email rule prevents this from happening again.
Similarly, in the past, some posters who posted many objections to other people's posts triggered some less than supportive responses from other posters. The email rule prevents this from happening, since those complaints/objections/"requests for determination"/etc will not be displayed publicly.
Also, have you considered that others' reactions to your posts might be based on your own behavior, and not related to your ethnic/religious background? Just a thought...
Lastly, on a personal note, based on our history, Lou, I don't plan to debate this with you. My feelings have been hurt in the past by your posts, and my choice for protecting myself in future is to disengage.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:14:19
In reply to Lou's views-Lour requests your consideratio, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 12:57:52
Friends,
Here is an example of my proposal.
Poster A posts
Hey evrybody, how about if we have a sky-diving club here of babblers?
Poster B writes,
Skydiving is bullcr*p.(the poster does not use the star)
Poster C posts a request for a determination on what poster B posted as to if it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum
Dr. Hsiung writes back and asks the poster, C, what the foundation is to allow the request.
Poster C cites the clause about not posting language that could offend others.
Now here I would tend to think that a discussion about this has a proper foundation , for a resonable person could think that the word is in the catagory of {language that could offend others}.
Then Dr. Hsiung writes back,
I see that it could invoke your inquierey, but my thinking is that that word does not fall into the catagory {here} of language that could offend others.
Or Dr. Hsiung could agree with the poster.
Either way, the poster could have thought that he needed to know Dr. Hsiung's thinking and had a foundation to ask.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:21:43
In reply to Re: Lou's views about the {3} rules » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 13:02:05
Racer,
You wrote,[...to now be emailed...]
First, is this new rule in the FAQ or still under discussion?
Lou
Posted by notfred on August 13, 2006, at 13:22:55
In reply to Lou's views-Lou's example, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:14:19
I do not want to get pulled into this, as history repeats itself, so I am taking my leave of the Babbles.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:30:33
In reply to Good Bye, posted by notfred on August 13, 2006, at 13:22:55
Friends,
It is written here,[...I do not want to get pulled...history repeats...].
It is not my intention to cause anyone to [...get pulled...].
Now if anyone would preferr to have dialog here with me without posting, I could email with you at;
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 13:31:37
In reply to Good Bye, posted by notfred on August 13, 2006, at 13:22:55
No need to take leave of Babble. There are other choices.
I hope you choose not to go and to find other ways to stay disengaged from anything you wish to refrain from being engaged in.
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 13:32:47
In reply to Re: Good Bye » notfred, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 13:31:37
It is not a proposition. It is a rule.
It may not be in the FAQ yet, but it is an enforceable rule.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:49:25
In reply to Re: Lou's views about the {3} rules » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 13:02:05
Racer,
You wrote,[...you are not seeing that..]and,
[...my feelings have been hurt...by your posts...].
Could you write further as to what you used as a foundation to write the second statement? It is not my intentions to hurt anyone's feelings, so if I knew what your foundation is for that, then I could know what it is.
If you preferr to email me about this, that would be Ok with me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:58:01
In reply to It is a rule., posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 13:32:47
Dinah,
You wrote,[...it is a rule...]
Well. I have just started to see this here and I also saw something about that you may be exempting others from the rule and others can email you with requests even though they may have emailed 3 other requests concerning the same poster, right?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:08:50
In reply to Lou's inquiery to Dinah about emailing requests » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 13:58:01
I have offered that anyone can email or babblemail me after they've reached the limit, as long as they recognize that I might not agree with them, and as long as they accept that.
I'm not making exceptions. I made the offer to everyone, under the same conditions.
In other words, after they've reached the limit with a poster, they're still free to email me or babblemail me asking me to review a post, as long as they accept that I might not agree that the post is uncivil, and as long as they accept my decision.
In other words, I'm offering to accept ONE babblemail or email about any given post from anyone at all, asking me to review that post. But I'm not offering to engage in debate about posts I make that offer on. I am using the term debate to mean anything more than one request to review a post.
In summary, I am offering to accept additional requests for review above and beyond what Dr. Bob allows, but that's it. Not debate, just requests.
If that becomes an issue, I'll have to withdraw my offer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:17:20
In reply to Re: Lou's inquiery to Dinah about emailing request, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:08:50
Dinah,
You wrote,[...free to email me after limit....].
Well, if one asks you to review it, could that one be sanctioned for asking if your thinking is that what the poster asked you to decide , you decided that it was acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:20:11
In reply to Re: Lou's inquiery to Dinah about emailing request » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:17:20
I didn't really understand your question. I'm sorry.
If you're asking if I decide that the post was ok, would the requestor get in trouble, then the answer is no, the requestor would not receive any admin sanction. It would just end there.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:29:55
In reply to Re: Lou's inquiery to Dinah about emailing request, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:20:11
Dinah,
You wrote,[...I didn't..understand your question...]
Well, let me use an example.
Suppose one emails you about a poster that they have emailed 3 previouse requests about over the years that in DR. Hsiung's thinking, he decided that they were acceptable.
Now then, suppose they ask you to review the poster's post and request that you deciede in your thinking as to if the statement(s) in question are civil or not.
You reply to the one requesting either that the statements are acceptable and civil, or that you decide that one or more of the statements in question are not acceptable as per the guidlines of the forum.
Now the question that I have was that if you decide that those statements that one had asked you to make a determination about were all accepable, then would the one that asked you to decide be sanctioned?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:32:37
In reply to Lou offers clarification » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:29:55
No.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:46:18
In reply to Re: Lou offers clarification, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:32:37
Dinah,
Let us consider the other aspect of your offer to exempt posters from the {3} rule about your thinking.
I understand that you will not sanction one for asking, if your thinking is that the statement in question is acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
The other aspect of your offer, then is will you sanction the poster that the one was asking about, if your thinking is that the statement in question is not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:47:45
In reply to Lou's request for further clification » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 14:46:18
Lou, this is all getting too complicated.
I just offered to accept more requests than I was required to accept.
If it's going to be a big deal, I'll just withdraw the offer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:12:24
In reply to Re: Lou's request for further clification, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:47:45
Dinah,
I am in favor of you withdrawing your offer.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 15:18:36
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:12:24
Fine, consider it withdrawn.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:22:54
In reply to Re: Lou's request for further clification, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 14:47:45
Dinah,
I am not in favor of your offer, although I do appreciate your concern in this matter. But I think that there is the potential for other issues to arrise if there are two administrative rules. One is That Dr. Hsiung will sanction a member for asking more than three times about a poster's posts if his thinking is that what the member asked was that the aked statement is acceptablie. In your adminstrative offer, members would not be sanctioned for asking if your thinking was that the statements in question were acceptable.
SO we could then have two administrative venues which I at this time lean to thinking that if that is allowed, that my understanding of a supportive administration is that rules are to be well-defined and applied equally. Do you see what I am saying.
I do not think that your offer was bad in any way, and I appreciate your concern. But what do you think about my proposal, using the proper foundation principle?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 15:25:30
In reply to Lou's reasons for thinking about the withdraw » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:22:54
Since I withdrew my offer.
I am not planning to continue discussing my offer, since it is no longer in place.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:35:06
In reply to I think the discussion is moot, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2006, at 15:25:30
Dinah,
I agree that the offer has been withdrwn by you, for I just now saw your post about that.
In my last post, I was constructing it and posted it about the same time as your post here and did not see your post and I do not think that in my post that I was wanting to further discuss it with you, but to post my reasons for agreeing with you, without any discussion requested by me. However, others could have wanted to discuss it with you and your post does say that you do not want to discuss it, for anyone, I guess.
However, my last question was what you thought ,if anything, about my proposal in relation to the "proper foundation principle". Could you offer an opinion about my proposal?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:45:18
In reply to Lou's reply » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:35:06
Friends,
There is now in place a new rule that says that one can not ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking if they have in all the years here asked him about his thinking as to if he thinks that a statement is or is not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum. But rules can be undone and replaced by a better rule that could be more suppotive and civil,right?
My proposal here IMO could offer a way to satify both sides on the issue as to if one can ask on the administrative forum a request for a determination , which IMO is like a request for clairification.
What does anyone think?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:49:03
In reply to More about Lou's proposal, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:45:18
Friends,
There was a part left out in the previous post. It should read that posters that have asked about a poster over the years {3 times and Dr. Hsiung's thinking was tht the statement in question was acceptable}.My apology.
Lou
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.