![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 46. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 12:46:58
To Dr. Hsiung and his deputies,
I am requesting that we have dialog concerning what your new rules are, for I do not know what they entail.
A. Are they in the FAQ?
B. Where can I find them if they are not in FAQ
C. What are the possible exceptions to these new rules
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 13:27:23
In reply to Lou asks the admin for clarification of rules, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 12:46:58
Dr. Hsiung,
In particular, a deputy posted about links that showed historical propaganda used to not be allowed.
I am requesting that you write as to if you agree with the deputy and if so, what could be your rational for saying that what is shown historically, to be in your thinking to be uncivil.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 17:21:28
In reply to Lou asks the admin for clarification of rules, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 13:27:23
Dr. Hsiung and his deputies,
I am wanting to know more about your new policy about URLs being posted.
Could you tell me about this new policy as to how it considers something to be uncivil or civil here in a URL? In particular, but not limited to, could one post here a URL of;
A. A speech by Dr. Martin Luther King jr that has already been posted?
B. A press release by the Anti-Defamation League
C. A post by you or a deputy that shows a past practice here.
D. A post by a member that has been deemed to be civil here.
E. Any post authored by yourself.
F. A credible research article
G. A press release of any nature
H. A historical document
K. A wikipedia discussion
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 3, 2006, at 8:35:11
In reply to Lou asks the admin more about your policy, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 17:21:28
> Dr. Hsiung and his deputies,
> I am wanting to know more about your new policy about URLs being posted.
> Could you tell me about this new policy as to how it considers something to be uncivil or civil here in a URL? In particular, but not limited to, could one post here a URL of;
> A. A speech by Dr. Martin Luther King jr that has already been posted?
> B. A press release by the Anti-Defamation League
> C. A post by you or a deputy that shows a past practice here.
> D. A post by a member that has been deemed to be civil here.
> E. Any post authored by yourself.
> F. A credible research article
> G. A press release of any nature
> H. A historical document
> K. A wikipedia discussion
> Lou Pilder
I imagine there is quite a bit of policing that will be left to the personal and subjective judgments of those delegated the task of moderating this website. I doubt a set of rigid criteria could be set a priori as a test for civility for all the material to be found on the Internet.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:40:43
In reply to Lou asks the admin more about your policy, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 17:21:28
> I am wanting to know more about your new policy about URLs being posted.
> Could you tell me about this new policy as to how it considers something to be uncivil or civil here in a URL?I'm not sure I'd consider it new, but one way to look at it might be that if something would be OK to post directly, then it would be OK to link to.
Bob
Posted by zazenducky on September 12, 2006, at 10:31:31
In reply to Re: policy about URLs, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:40:43
what about linking to something that has links to sites which would be considered uncivil by you?
for instance a wiki article about hate groups is not uncivil butmight have a link to the group itself which was uncivil
how far will the arm o the civility law reach
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2006, at 14:28:04
In reply to links to uncivil links » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on September 12, 2006, at 10:31:31
> how far will the arm o the civility law reach
This has come up before, just to the page being linked to by the poster.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Redirect: what URLs can or can not be posted, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2006, at 9:06:57
DR. Hsiung,
You wrote in the link that you offer here something like that [...if you could post it without being in a URL, then you could post it with being in a URL...].
But there now are new rules in regards to a URL that I posted that showed how historical propaganda tactics were used as being state-sponsored to arrouse antisemitic feelings throughout an entire country. I had posted the same in the past and there was no mention by the administration as to the URL having uncivil content. So is there not a change in the administration concerning the posting of a URL to historical events?
If so, then I could possibly not post a URL to show historical use of the accusation made to the Jews in question here?
I ask:
A. That it made available to me to have the post that I would like to be included in the posts that have accusations made toward the Jews here be reviewed by you before I post it.
B. That you post an explaination in the FAQ here as to why a URL of a historical event that I posted before, is not allowed, now, to be posted here.
C. That the 3-consecutive post rule be changed to 3 consecutive posts, but after 12 hours pass, the rule starts over.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Lou's response-what URLs can or can not be posted » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 5:40:44
> But there now are new rules in regards to a URL
I think there was a "ruling" rather than a new rule. A judgment was made that can be appealed. A new regulation was not implemented.
> that I posted that showed how historical propaganda tactics were used as being state-sponsored to arrouse antisemitic feelings throughout an entire country. I had posted the same in the past and there was no mention by the administration as to the URL having uncivil content.
I am not sure whether or not the poster wishes to repost the exact same URL that had remained unsanctioned in a previous post.
> So is there not a change in the administration concerning the posting of a URL to historical events?
My GUESS is that there exists no such rule or regulation. However, I believe that the judging of the content of the webpages posted as URL links remains a component of the enforcement of civility on Psycho-Babble. This judging is to some extent a subjective interpretation of the content being judged and the guidelines being used to make the judgments. Just as the decisions rendered in the US court system, these judgments remain in constant flux and can vary over time as thoughts and feelings are variable. Of course, any judgment rendered must still fall within the framework of the existing regulations. When the existing regulations are no longer judged to reflect the needs of the exigent, they are then changed as allowed. In other words, I would GUESS that something that was judged to be civil in the past might not be judged to be civil in the present. In addition, one must take into consideration the instances for which a post has not been reviewed by administrators. That a post remains unsanctioned does not de facto indicate that it is civil.
Let me repeat that last sentence:
THAT A POST REMAINS UNSANCTIONED DOES NOT DE FACTO INDICATE THAT IT IS CIVIL.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response-what URLs can or can not be po, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:51:58
Friends,
It is written here. [...that a post remains unsanctioned does not de facto {indicate} that it is civil.
But, is there not some type of convention here that if Dr. Hsiung makes a pass and no sanction is made to a post, that some people could IMO think it is considered to be civil? And also, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that he would like us to trust him that he is doing what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
Also, there is the potential for some others,IMO, to consider that what is left unsanctioned is considered to be civil by the nature that uncivil posts are sanctioned. In other words, the owner/moderator does not put either {civil} or {uncivil} after each post. Could that not have the potential, IMO, for some others to think that posts left unsanctioned could be considerd by the administration to be civil?
Then there is the aspect that requests for a determination as to the civility or not of a post are not answered by the administration. Could that not lead some others to think that those statements in question are civil?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:25
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 7:40:41
Friends,
There are requests for a determination as to if a post is civil or not that have not been replied to. If you would like to see a list of these, you could email me for them.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 14:47:26
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 7:40:41
> > THAT A POST REMAINS UNSANCTIONED DOES NOT DE FACTO INDICATE THAT IT IS CIVIL.
> Friends,
> It is written here. [...that a post remains unsanctioned does not de facto {indicate} that it is civil.Yes. I believe I may have inadvertantly proposed a doctrine. Perhaps it should be included somewhere in the mission statement or FAQ of this website. Perhaps not. Perhaps a doctrine stating the opposite is indicated. I think this issue should be addressed, though.
> But, is there not some type of convention here that if Dr. Hsiung makes a pass and no sanction is made to a post, that some people could IMO think it is considered to be civil?
This is why it would be helpful for a doctrine to be formulated and included in the verbiage of the civility guidelines.
> And also, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that he would like us to trust him that he is doing what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
> Also, there is the potential for some others,IMO, to consider that what is left unsanctioned is considered to be civil by the nature that uncivil posts are sanctioned. In other words, the owner/moderator does not put either {civil} or {uncivil} after each post. Could that not have the potential, IMO, for some others to think that posts left unsanctioned could be considerd by the administration to be civil?
> Then there is the aspect that requests for a determination as to the civility or not of a post are not answered by the administration. Could that not lead some others to think that those statements in question are civil?
Yes. Things become complicated without a stated doctrine.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 16:18:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 7:55:10
Sometimes a person can run a red light and not get caught. This doesn't mean that it is ok for the person to continue running red lights.
This had been addressed before - that if a fairly long amount of time has elapsed Dr. Bob won't go back and PBC a post. It doesn't mean that it is ok in the future.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:50:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response-what URLs can or can not be po, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:51:58
Scott,
I've noticed that you've been quite generous with your time and wise with your words when offering explanations to others questions about the policies and practices here. I often find myself thinking, "Great explanation there. Wish I could be so articulate" when I read one.You're an asset to Babble. :)
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:53:18
In reply to Thanks » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:50:54
I've always thought that myself.
Scott is so terrific and level headed.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 13, 2006, at 22:07:13
In reply to Re: Thanks » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:53:18
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
In reply to Re: red light running » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 16:18:55
Friends,
It is written here,[...sometimes a person can run a red light and not get caught...time has elapsed DR. Hsiung will not go back...].
But let me tell you about an owner of an establishment here that had a racist sign in his window. He was told by the authorities to take it down. His argument to leave it there was that he had the sign there for a very long time and no one had protested. The courts gave him no favore for his argument and was convicted, and the sign was mandated to come down.
In another case here, another racist sign was in a resturant and the owner claimed the same , that he had it there for a long time and it would stay. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission said otherwise and the sign came down.
In a school case here, the 10 commandments were placed on the school lawn in violation of a US Supreme Court decision that the sign violated the first ammendment of establishment of religion. No one had protestd the sign for a very long time untill a resident did. The school's argument of the time issue fell on deaf ears and the sign was made to be removed. In a case in the South, a judge had a granite monument of the commandments in his court area, contrary to the establishment clause. He refused to remove it and was impeached.
When things are left to see, regardless as to how long they have been there, that does not give it licence to remain if it is in violation of public policy. This is different from someone running a red light and not get caught.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:34:11
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
Friends,
For a complete list of posts here that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have racist content, that have not been sanctioned in accordance with the policy here, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 7:02:35
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
> When things are left to see, regardless as to how long they have been there, that does not give it licence to remain if it is in violation of public policy.
Perhaps there should be a statute of limitations. If a post remains unchallenged for a set period of time, it is to be left unsanctioned. I don't know. I haven't given it much thought.
- Scott
Posted by sunnydays on September 14, 2006, at 20:01:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:13
Well, I could also argue that in the past, illegal aliens that have been in the United States for a certain period time have been granted amnesty and there were no sanctions against them. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, this site is not subject to precedent in US courts as this is not a court, but rather a site to offer advice and support. The main purpose of this site as I understand it is not to decide whether sanctions are right or wrong, but to support other people.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 7:23:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by sunnydays on September 14, 2006, at 20:01:12
Friends,
It is written here,[...this site is not subject to precedent in U.S. courts...].
Really?
For a list of U.S. court decisions regarding internet sites, you could email me if you like.
It is written ,[...a site to offer {advice}...]
I ask:
Advice from who?
It is written here,[...the main purpose..to support other people..]
I ask:
Is it supportive of this site to leave posts unsanctioned that have statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
for a list of these posts, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 7:23:24
>
> It is written ,[...a site to offer {advice}...]
> I ask:
> Advice from who?Advice from other posters. Anyone on this site can offer advice to anyone else on this site, unless there's a DNP request in force.
> It is written here,[...the main purpose..to support other people..]
> I ask:
> Is it supportive of this site to leave posts unsanctioned that have statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?That depends, Lou. Splitting this into two issues, I guess it really depends.
But it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory. Remember, if you're the ONLY one who sees a problem with a post, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is blind. It might just mean that there really is nothing wrong with that post.
The other issue is that truly discriminatory posts are generally not supportive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:26:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory..]. Does this mean that;
Dr. Hsiung took a vote and the overwhelming majority voted to leave posts that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned because those voters did not find them to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2006, at 13:33:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...it might mean...there is..nothing wrong with that post...]
If any reader here is interested in the posts that could be in question, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2006, at 18:47:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 15, 2006, at 11:46:48
> it is supportive to leave posts unsanctioned if an overwhelming majority do not find them discriminatory.
FYI, the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
Bob
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.