![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 11:38:21
In reply to Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Deputy Dinah, posted by Kath on January 1, 2008, at 19:49:12
Kath I'm here and glad to see you all thank-you gg for answering Kath I didn't know either. Thought I'd try and it worked. Love Phillipa
Posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:56:21
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
phillipa,
Many here are awaiting your return, hope you are OK and will rejoin us soon. Boy a week seems like a long time without your name around. You were missed by many here, especially since many of us questioned why you were even blocked to begin with. As a result of your block, some others were also blocked, supporting you. So you have friends here, for sure.
All I want you to know is that no matter how many people do not appreciate your presence here, you have a right to be here as much as anyone else. The world is full of many people that others cannot tolerate for one reason or another. It is not their right to try and limit your participation here. Who made them right and you wrong? Tolerance of others is what being human, or rather humane, is all about. We all are not the same and others do not have the right to try and restrict your participation by intimidation and criticism. I think you are picked on because of your frequency in posting and being off topic on some posts, but is that a good enough reason to ostracize you?
Being put in a mold that someone else creates is not allowing you to exercise your freedom here either. This site, as far as I know,is for everyone struggling with their own demons and deficiencies, and yours have every right to be here too. Those that object to your posts, should just skip over them. I bet most that criticize your posts also read them. It would be hard not to read them even if you say you don't find any value in them. They can be very interesting.
I find many posters who I skip over and that is the best way to handle that. Style and content is important for me. Time is also a consideration so every post is impossible to read unless this is your full time job. Not to put you down if it is, but you know what I mean.
Looking forward to your return and comments on your days in the slammer or wherever you spent your "time".
stargazer
Posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 12:03:45
In reply to Phillipa, We are awaiting your return...today?, posted by stargazer2 on January 2, 2008, at 11:56:21
Thanks stargazer2 was sick the whole time still am but have to keep the little business going 29 out now but have to leave. You made a very good point I was under the impression that Dr. Bob or the deputies had once said skip the posts you don't want to read. Oh I do that too especially ones for males as its an invasion of their privacy to me. Thanks for welcoming me back. I've missed a lot of you a whole bunch!!!!!!! Love Phillipa or Jan
Posted by Dinah on January 2, 2008, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
And you're absolutely right, of course.
I'm sorry, Kath, that I didn't get to this. I'm trying to get some work out while also spending family time.
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:02:35
In reply to Re: Do you know when Phillilpa can come back? » Kath, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2008, at 23:57:52
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:05:58
In reply to Re: Phillipa, We are awaiting your return...today? » stargazer2, posted by Phillipa on January 2, 2008, at 12:03:45
Posted by Kath on January 3, 2008, at 12:06:52
In reply to Thanks gg, posted by Dinah on January 2, 2008, at 22:30:58
That's ok Dinah. I really appreciate the work you Deputies do! Have no idea how you find the time!
luv & hugs, Kath
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 8:58:38
In reply to Blocked for a week » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:11:26
Dinah,
In your post to me here, that you write to please not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, I am unsure as to the following and I am requesting that you post here replies to me here to the following.
A. Who are those that you are referring to in my post in question here as {others}?
B. What part of my post is either putting down and/or accusing them?
C. How does that part either put down those others or accuse those others?
D. You also write that I have been asked not to do {this} before. I am unsure as to what the {this} is that you have asked me not to do before. If you could post here what the {this} is, then I could respond accordingly.
E. other aspects that could arrise from any reply from you to me concerning my requests to you.
If you could post your reply to me here for the identification and clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly per the policy here that it is fine to discuss the actions we take, rationales and such.
Lou
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 10, 2008, at 9:16:48
In reply to Lou's reques to Dinah for clrfctn/idntifcatn » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 8:58:38
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
Even though you didn't identify the posts or posters directly, you are saying that statements posted here (by Babble posters) have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings and coud cause harm. The fact that you didn't identify those posters doesn't mean that poster's won't feel accused, and in fact more posters may feel accused as they wonder if it's their posts you are referring to.
You've been asked before not to post anything that could lead other posters (named or unnamed) to feel accused or put down.
The site guidelines state that if you believe a post to be in violation of site guidelines you may report that post to administration.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Also, Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. If you believe this decision was made in error, please feel free to email him to discuss the matter.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 13:32:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reques to Dinah for clrfctn/idntifcatn » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 10, 2008, at 9:16:48
Dinah,
In regards to that you wrote here that members may report a post to the administration, I am unsure as to what URLs of posts here could or could not be posted here. This involves posts of the nature that have been notated as uncivil in some way and posts that have been reported and are left to stand, which in my thinking could mean that posts of that nature could at least be considerd to be civil by some people.
If you could clarify this, then I could know what URLs of posts here that I can post or not post here for a citation in an administrative discussion that is concerning the policy, rationales , rules ,and the actions that are taken by the administration here.
Lou
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 10, 2008, at 15:17:30
In reply to Lou's reques to Dinah for clairification-urlcite? » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 13:32:04
> In regards to that you wrote here that members may report a post to the administration, I am unsure as to what URLs of posts here could or could not be posted here.
Lou,
When Dinah wrote that, I'm quite sure she was referring to reporting posts using the 'Notify the Administrators' button at the bottom of the posting window. This is the way posts are reported now, per the FAQ, not publicly, not even on this board.
In other words, since it is against site guidelines to have discussions where the basis is to raise the question of potentially uncivil posts, from the past or present, on the Admin Board, it is now moot what URLs might or might not be okay to include.
Of course, you can have a general discussion about policy, rules, rationale and actions taken here, but in order to remain within the rules, you would not be able to make reference to posts that you might believe are uncivil or problematic in the course of that discussion.
Hope that helps clarify.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 17:03:42
In reply to Re: reporting posts to administration » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 10, 2008, at 15:17:30
> > In regards to that you wrote here that members may report a post to the administration, I am unsure as to what URLs of posts here could or could not be posted here.
>
> Lou,
>
> When Dinah wrote that, I'm quite sure she was referring to reporting posts using the 'Notify the Administrators' button at the bottom of the posting window. This is the way posts are reported now, per the FAQ, not publicly, not even on this board.
>
> In other words, since it is against site guidelines to have discussions where the basis is to raise the question of potentially uncivil posts, from the past or present, on the Admin Board, it is now moot what URLs might or might not be okay to include.
>
> Of course, you can have a general discussion about policy, rules, rationale and actions taken here, but in order to remain within the rules, you would not be able to make reference to posts that you might believe are uncivil or problematic in the course of that discussion.
>
> Hope that helps clarify.
>
>
> 10derHeart,
You wrote,[...Notify..This is the way...where the basis is to raise the question of potentially uncivil posts...not be able to make reference to posts that {you might believe} {are uncivil or problematic}...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by {you might believe} here. Could you clarify as to what the criteria will be here that will be used to determine, when someone posts a URL, as to if it is or is not what they believe as the URL having content that is uncivil or problematic? If you could, then I could know those criteria to use in when I post a URL here.
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 17:34:02
In reply to Lou's request to 10derHeart for criteria-2fr? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 17:03:42
> > > In regards to that you wrote here that members may report a post to the administration, I am unsure as to what URLs of posts here could or could not be posted here.
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > When Dinah wrote that, I'm quite sure she was referring to reporting posts using the 'Notify the Administrators' button at the bottom of the posting window. This is the way posts are reported now, per the FAQ, not publicly, not even on this board.
> >
> > In other words, since it is against site guidelines to have discussions where the basis is to raise the question of potentially uncivil posts, from the past or present, on the Admin Board, it is now moot what URLs might or might not be okay to include.
> >
> > Of course, you can have a general discussion about policy, rules, rationale and actions taken here, but in order to remain within the rules, you would not be able to make reference to posts that you might believe are uncivil or problematic in the course of that discussion.
> >
> > Hope that helps clarify.
> >
> >
> > 10derHeart,
> You wrote,[...Notify..This is the way...where the basis is to raise the question of potentially uncivil posts...not be able to make reference to posts that {you might believe} {are uncivil or problematic}...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by {you might believe} here. Could you clarify as to what the criteria will be here that will be used to determine, when someone posts a URL, as to if it is or is not what they believe as the URL having content that is uncivil or problematic? If you could, then I could know those criteria to use in when I post a URL here.
> Lou10derHeart,
The correction to my post above is that I am also unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by a post being {problematic} and I would like to include that. I would also like for you to include the criteria that will be used to determine if a URL is posted that you consider that the poster is wanting to show that it is problematic. If you could clarify what is meant by {problematic} by listing any criteria for that determination to be made, then I could know of those criteria in posting a URL here.
Lou
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2008, at 21:50:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reques to Dinah for clrfctn/idntifcatn » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 10, 2008, at 9:16:48
Dinah,
You wrote,[...posters may feel accused...]
I am requesting that you identify the criteria that you used to determine that statements in my post are such that posters may feel accused as they wonder if it's their post that I am referrring to for I am unsure as to what those criteria that you used are.
If you could post them here, then I could have an understanding as to what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly, for I am not at this time able to understand how offering members to email me for infomation could cause someone to feel accused.
Lou
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 9:24:11
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for criteria used-acus » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2008, at 21:50:31
> If you could post them here, then I could have an understanding as to what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly, for I am not at this time able to understand how offering members to email me for infomation could cause someone to feel accused.
> LouOffering to email members is not in violation of Babble civility guidelines. It's how you described the statements you were offering to email.
You said:
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
I replied:
"Even though you didn't identify the posts or posters directly, you are saying that statements posted here (by Babble posters) have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings and coud cause harm. The fact that you didn't identify those posters doesn't mean that poster's won't feel accused, and in fact more posters may feel accused as they wonder if it's their posts you are referring to."
In the sentence of yours that I quoted, "I could email you, if you like," is the part that was fine.
If you have any further questions on the civility guidelines (which are the criteria I used), you may find them at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil.
If you believe my decision was made in error, you may email Dr. Bob directly to request his review.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 10:27:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dinah for criteria used-acus » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 9:24:11
> > If you could post them here, then I could have an understanding as to what you are wanting to mean and respond accordingly, for I am not at this time able to understand how offering members to email me for infomation could cause someone to feel accused.
> > Lou
>
> Offering to email members is not in violation of Babble civility guidelines. It's how you described the statements you were offering to email.
>
> You said:
>
> > Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
>
> I replied:
>
> "Even though you didn't identify the posts or posters directly, you are saying that statements posted here (by Babble posters) have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings and coud cause harm. The fact that you didn't identify those posters doesn't mean that poster's won't feel accused, and in fact more posters may feel accused as they wonder if it's their posts you are referring to."
>
> In the sentence of yours that I quoted, "I could email you, if you like," is the part that was fine.
>
> If you have any further questions on the civility guidelines (which are the criteria I used), you may find them at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil.
>
> If you believe my decision was made in error, you may email Dr. Bob directly to request his review.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. BobDinah,
You wrote,[...you are saying that statements posted here (by Babble posters)have the potential...]
Let us look at the whole statement by me. The whole statement was,[...staements posted here {that are left to stand}...]. It is the {that are left to stand} that is IMO the issue here.
You see, if statements are{ left to stand}, could not a reasonable person think that an accepted meaning of that phrase is that the statements in question are acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 11:21:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-letstnd » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 10:27:17
By the administration, yes. Not by you.
I've gone as far as I can in this discussion, Lou. The rules are as I stated. Please don't negatively characterize the posts of others, whether or not you name them specifically. Saying that they have the potential to cause harm or arouse antisemitic feeling is negatively characterizing them. Please do not do this on the board.
If you have any further questions, it might be best to address them to Dr. Bob. I don't know how to help you further.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 12:07:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-letstnd » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 11:21:00
> By the administration, yes. Not by you.
>
> I've gone as far as I can in this discussion, Lou. The rules are as I stated. Please don't negatively characterize the posts of others, whether or not you name them specifically. Saying that they have the potential to cause harm or arouse antisemitic feeling is negatively characterizing them. Please do not do this on the board.
>
> If you have any further questions, it might be best to address them to Dr. Bob. I don't know how to help you further.Friends,
It is written here,[..By the administration,yes....]
I am asking that those members here that could be interested in further discussing this that they can email me if they like. I would like to have an email discussion as to:
A. What, in your opinions, it could mean that the adminstration is allowing particular statements to stand.
B. What, in your opinions, it could mean to you as a member that particular statements are allowed to stand here.
C. What, in your opinions, your feelings are, concerning the statements that could be identified in our email discussion, that are being allowed to stand.
D. other aspects that could arrise in our discussion.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 16:57:14
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Dinah's post-emal, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 12:07:55
Friends,
To those wanting to continue the discussion in question by email,
I had asked Dinah to consider that in my question to her that there was the aspect of [that are left to stand}. My question was:
[...if statements are {left to stand}, could not a reasonable person think that an accepted meaning of that phrase is that the statements in question are acceptable?
Dinah wrote back to me,[...By the administration, yes. Not by you...].
I am unsure now as to what that could mean in regards to {if} it is being a reply to me to the question that I had asked her. If it is a reply to my question to her, I am unsure as to how the administration can consider that a statement left to stand could be considered acceptable but not by me, if that is what is meant by her reply to me here.
Thearfore, I am retracting my offer to discuss further the aspects in question by email for I do not understand her reply to me in regards to [...the administration, yes. Not by you.].
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 18:38:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Dinah's post-emal, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 12:07:55
> Friends,
> It is written here,[..By the administration,yes....]
> I am asking that those members here that could be interested in further discussing this that they can email me if they like. I would like to have an email discussion as to:
> A. What, in your opinions, it could mean that the adminstration is allowing particular statements to stand.
> B. What, in your opinions, it could mean to you as a member that particular statements are allowed to stand here.
> C. What, in your opinions, your feelings are, concerning the statements that could be identified in our email discussion, that are being allowed to stand.
> D. other aspects that could arrise in our discussion.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou, I really don't think I can explain any better what I meant. I've done my best. However, I think this post was fine, and was going to thank you for not negatively characterizing the posts of others in it.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 12, 2008, at 20:16:52
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Dinah's post-ema, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 18:38:39
Hi Dinah,
I don't know if I can help, but...
Lou wrote that he is "unsure now as to what that could mean in regards to {if} it is being a reply to me to the question that I had asked her". From what I understand in reading the dialog, your reply he references is indeed a reply from you attempting to answer his question. He goes on to state that if so, he "is unsure as to how the administration can consider that a statement left to stand could be considered acceptable but not by [Lou]. I interpreted your reply as saying that one or more posts could be considered to be "acceptable" administratively while at the same time seeming not to be "acceptable" to Lou. If I've understood you accurately, Dinah, then that's certainly an idea that's consistent with my experience with this issue while as a deputy.
Did I do good? :D
Take care,
gg
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 20:18:28
In reply to If I could try? » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on January 12, 2008, at 20:16:52
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 20:40:02
In reply to You did great! Thanks. (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 20:18:28
Dinah,
If there is a post that the administration has let to stand,which could mean that it is acceptable here, could I post the URL of that post here? If not, could you post the rationale for me not being allowed to post the URL since the adminstration has let it stand and it could be acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 21:48:46
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for a rationale-acptbl » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 20:40:02
I've really done all I can, Lou. I'll pass your request on to Dr. Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 14, 2008, at 3:44:33
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for a rationale-acptbl » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2008, at 20:40:02
> could I post the URL of that post here?
What would you hope to achieve by doing that?
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.