![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 58. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
In reply to More about Lou's proposal, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:45:18
> 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?No, that's not the rule. The rule is a limit of three (3) posts objecting/"requesting a determination"/whatever about a specific poster THAT HAVE BEEN JUDGED ACCEPTABLE.
If Dr Bob finds that the posts in question are not within the guidelines for the site, there is not a limit. The limit only applies when the posts questioned are judged to be within the guidelines.
The idea is to limit the number of spurious requests.
> 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?
> LouNo, your proposal does not seem to offer a way to satisfy both sides. It only seems like a way to satisfy you.
For your satisfaction, have you considered creating your own forum? It's not hard, and I am even willing to help you. The script this forum is based on is free, and you would then be able to make any rule that made you happy.
Here, though, this is Dr Bob's site, and therefore Dr Bob's rules. If we want to be here, we have to follow his rules -- very much in the same way we'd have to play by his rules if we were sitting in his living room.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:31:42
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote about what I did correct in the succeeding post and it is that one here can not ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking as to if he thinks a statement is acceptable or not {if Dr. Hsiung has said that his thinking was that the statement in question is acceptable to three requests about what the same poster wrote}.My apology.
But the overiding issue to me here is that I beklive that I can noet know what one thinks unless I ask them. This is why I am proposing a way to allow others to ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking without being sanctioned because one does not know what his thinking is and asks him and he has said that his thinking is that the statement in question is acceptable 3 times for the requests about the same poster.
Instead of trying to write that out all the time, could we use something like,{3 same poster}to take the place of that long statemnet?
Lou
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:39:38
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...limit the number of spurious requests..]
I do not consider any request by me or anyone else that is asking how Dr. Hsiung thinks about a statement in relation to his rules. I consider all requests of that nature to have the potential to foster support and education as per the goals of the forum. Could you tell me why would a request be deemed to be spurious if the poster is asking for help to find out how Dr. Hsiung thinks about his rules?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:45:03
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...No, you proposal...only seems like a way to satify you...].
Sorry, but could you explain whay my proposal could not also satisfy others that would want to ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking without being sanctioned because he thinks that a statement is acceptable? In asking as to if something is acceptable or not, is not the asker asking for either way that Dr. Hsiung thinks?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 17:28:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer-olysatyu, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:45:03
Lou sorry but I like things the way they are. And things have been running rather smoothly in my opinion for about a year. Sorry Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:34:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer-olysatyu » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 17:28:16
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...I like things the way that they are...].
Could you write what the things are that you like in relation to your word,"Sorry"?
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.