![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 57. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2008, at 7:48:54
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on January 14, 2008, at 3:44:33
> > could I post the URL of that post here?
>
> What would you hope to achieve by doing that?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...you..achieve by that?...]
Let us look at this thread's content.
I had asked the deputy here if I could post here a URL of posts that you have {let stand}. And if not, could a rationale for disallowing one here to post a URL of a post that has been let to stand be posted here.
A generally accepted meaning of the expression,{allow to stand}, is that what is allowed to stand is acceptable or approved. There have been new rules made here when I rejoined the forum about a year ago that I am unsure of as to what URLs can or can not be posted here. I think that you wrote that URLs that have an uncivil statement in them can not be posted.
Your question to me is [...what would you hope to achive by doing that?...] ( post a URL of a post here that has been let to stand).
Since I am unsure as to what URLs from here can be posted here or not, if posts here that have been let to stand could not have their URLs posted here (which means that those posts could be considered to be civil by some), what could be a rationale for such? This then could give guidance to members here that would like to cite a post for referrence in an administartive discussion before they post it, and if what is let to stand is also civil, could not those posts show what is being promoted here as being civil?
One generally accepted meaning of posts that have been {left to stand} could be those posts that have not been notated as uncivil {by the administration in the thread that they appear}.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 14, 2008, at 13:37:39
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-hop2achev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2008, at 7:48:54
> This then could give guidance to members here that would like to cite a post for referrence in an administartive discussion before they post it
We'll probably be able to provide better guidance if people contact us directly and let us know what they're considering posting.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#current
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 15, 2008, at 6:10:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on January 14, 2008, at 13:37:39
> > This then could give guidance to members here that would like to cite a post for referrence in an administartive discussion before they post it
>
> We'll probably be able to provide better guidance if people contact us directly and let us know what they're considering posting.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#current
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...We'll probably be able to provide better guidance..using the contact feature...]
A generally accepted meaning of something probably happening is that there is very little doubt concerning as to if it will happen or not.
A system of forwarding a post for preview before posting to get approval could be a great system and there are forums that use such a system. The forums that I know of provide a feedback in just a few minuets because they have many people receiving the posts and they each have the authority to post them or send them back for modification to the member without having the owner/oporator of the forum make the decision. This allows the member to be an equal participant in the discussion by not having them have to wait days or even hours for a reply.
In this forum, you have a policy that the deputies do not have to respond and if they send it to you, then your availability could be limited and the approval sought could take days to be determined. Your reply could be better , but the time in between the member sending and receiving a resopnse could mean that they could not participate equally in the discussion.
Now if there are published guidlines here for posting a URL of {a post that has been allowed to stand}, the member here could have that guidance without sending and waiting for a reply from the administration.
A member could also have both ways, and they could make their own choice. As to if you are concluding that it will probably provide better guidance by the way of contacting the deputies, could you post here what criteria you used in your thinking that {We'll probably be able to provide {better} guidamce by attempting to contact the deputies? In my thinking, a list of criteria that members can refer to immediatly could allow them to continue in the discussion without having to wait perhaps days to find out if they can or can not post a URL of a post showing the past practice as indicated by previous posts here that are allowed to stand.
I am asking that you post here any reason(s) that you might have in your thinking that if you are not going to post guidlines for posting previous posts that have been left to stand, why it could not be good for the community as a whole to post guidlines for members to use to determine if they can or can not post a URL of a post here that has been left to stand. If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2008, at 9:44:38
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.Mr. Hsiung,
Dinah wrote,[...the rules are...don't negatively characterize the posts of others...saying that they have the potential to...is negatively characterizing them...questions might be best to address them to Dr. Bob...].
In response to that it is fine to discuss actions taken by the administration, and ask for rationales and such and to discuss the rules here, I have the following concerns that I would like for you to address per the statement by Dinah that she thinks that it might be best.
A1. What rule here is involved? There is a rule to not post member's posts that have been notated as uncivil, but the posts in question have been allowed to stand.There is a rule to not post a member's post for a determination, but the posts in question have already been determined to be allowed to stand.
A2. What criteria are used here to conclude that a post could negatively characterize a post as what Dinah has written? If it negatively characterizes the {post}, how in your thinking could that have anything to do with the member that posted it? If you have a rationale for that, could you post it here (with a citation from a notable psychiatrist/psychologist? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly..A3. Dinah later wrote that [...the administration, yes. Not by you...] Is there not the interpretation that some could think that she is saying that the administartion considers the posts in question to be acceptable and civil and that I do not? If so, could not the fact that I do not , but the administration does, mean that I could post any post here that has been allowed to stand because the adminstration considers them to be civil? If you could post a reply to me here, then I could have the opportunity to respond ccordingly.
B. In you thinking, why could any others here feel accused? A generally accepted meaning of {to feel accused} means to {be blamed} or to have done something wrong. But if the post in question that one wants to post is said before it is posted that {it has been allowed to let stand here}, then is that not having the potential for others to think that the post is acceptable, and thearfore civil, and could not members post URLs of posts that have been let stand as civil and not done something wrong here? Have the members that posted what you have let stand done something wrong? If so, what have they done wrong to be accused of?
C. Would you be willing to have a discussion here, at a set time, so that all could discuss this, knowing in advance the time that the discussion will be held? We could also invite outside experts in the fields involved here with proper notice.
D. Could you set up an email address, (perhaps Dinah's, or a volunteer) that I could send the posts in question to so that others could email that address and not me? These are (posts here that have been allowed to stand} that could be part of the discussion that could take place here? If you could, then others could have IMO a better understanding of the issue involved an be better able to participate in any discussion concerning this.
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.