![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 22, 2004, at 20:36:23
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that I be provided here an opportunity to respond to your opening page on the faith board. I feel that since you have used a dialog of other posters here including my name that I be afforded this opportunity to respond.
I am requesting that my response, if granted, be included in the text at the end of the text and be titled, 'Lou's Response to These Guidlines"
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on December 23, 2004, at 8:42:31
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -rfotr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 22, 2004, at 20:36:23
> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting that I be provided here an opportunity to respond to your opening page on the faith board. I feel that since you have used a dialog of other posters here including my name that I be afforded this opportunity to respond.
> I am requesting that my response, if granted, be included in the text at the end of the text and be titled, 'Lou's Response to These Guidlines"
> Lou Pilder
Hi Lou.I have no criticism regarding your use of the administration board to address your concerns regarding some of the posts and introductions you find on the Faith board. I just wonder if some of your concerns might be better expressed directly on that board. It might be a more effective way to effect change. What do you think? I really don't know. Posting there in a purely "supportive" motif can be a challenge.
I hope this post finds you well.
- Scott
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 9:16:56
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -rfotr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 22, 2004, at 20:36:23
I may not be understanding this request correctly and if I'm not and my response is not "on target", it is because I'm not grasping it.
I was of the opinion beginning "mission statements" that top the boards were an explanation of purpose and expected behaviors (with some commentary) that "spell out" the site owner's expectations.
Discussions driven by starting a thread or posting to threads are, within guidelines expected, the participants part to the mix - making up a discussion board or forum.
With the above in mind, what would be the purpose of individual posters (not site owners) having input to the beginning explanation of any board?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 9:33:01
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -rfotr » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 23, 2004, at 8:42:31
SLS,
You wrote,[...concerns might be better expressed on that (faith) board...].
I think that my concerns are not applicable to be posted on the faith board as to leave that board for discussions about faith. My concerns are not about faith but about what is seen on the opening page of the faith board and I am requesting that I be afforded an opportunity to respond there as so those that read the opening page could also have the opportunity to see my response as well as Dr. Hsiung's statements. If I was to post my response on the faith board, then when someone would read the opening page, they might not know that there even is a response from me, for the board could be archived.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 10:03:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -rfotr, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 9:16:56
Glydin,
You wrote,[...what would be the purpose...individual posters...having input...?].
The request that I am making is to have the opportunity to respond . This may be something that is unusual, but I am requesting to be afforded the opportunity to respond for many reasons.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 10:26:05
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post-purpofinput » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 10:03:13
> The request that I am making is to have the opportunity to respond . This may be something that is unusual, but I am requesting to be afforded the opportunity to respond for many reasons.
Hello Lou,
I can understand what you've written above. I have a concept of the purpose of the opening statements on boards to be as I described before. Maybe, Dr. Bob will not agree with my thoughts. I am thinking if there is not agreement by Dr. Bob and additions by posters to opening statements are acceptable, this opportunity should be afforded to all posters to all boards. Whether that practice would be overall a "good" thing for the boards, I'm unsure.
Glydin
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 10:41:16
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-purpofinput » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 10:26:05
Glydin,
You wrote,[...if acceptable,...afforded to all posters...].
In this case, my name is used in the opening page. There are also statements by Dr. Hsiung that I feel could have the potential to mean something to some others about my faith that I feel could mean something else about my faith and that is one of the reasons that I am requesting the opportunity to have my response included in the opening statement. I also feel that others could also be afforded the same opportunity under similar circumstances.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 11:01:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-purpofinput » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 10:26:05
Glydin,
Dr. Hsiung's opening page of the faith board offers links to click on -guidlines and spacific examples being what I am referring to. The links focus in part on my foundation of my faith and my faith,IMO, is part of the subject. I feel that since this is done without my response being able to be read there, that I am requesting that I be afforded to do so, so that my response could be taken into consideration as to one's thinking on what the statements there have the potential to mean.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 11:16:40
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post-namusd » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 10:41:16
>In this case, my name is used in the opening page. There are also statements by Dr. Hsiung that I feel could have the potential to mean something to some others about my faith that I feel could mean something else about my faith and that is one of the reasons that I am requesting the opportunity to have my response included in the opening statement. I also feel that others could also be afforded the same opportunity under similar circumstances.
Hi Lou,
I'm going and read the opening statement you cite more carefully and maybe that would give me a better understanding.
I enjoy having interesting discussions that make me think - you have given me cause to think on a number of occassions - while I don't always agree with you, you do have me think deeper about a number of issues - that is not a bad thing for me.
Glydin
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 12:56:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-namusd » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 11:16:40
Lou,
I do indeed see where your name is in posts under the specific examples link. I have seen many posts cited by Dr. Bob in other areas of this site for example and figured that fell under the response in FAQ:
"You may therefore submit a message only if you agree to allow me unrestricted use of it. Submitting a message constitutes acceptance of that condition."
In the circumstance we are currently discussing, I see three possible scenarios:
1) Your request is granted.
2) Your request isn't granted
3) The specific examples area is removed or changed so your postings, name, etc.. is no longer used.Of course, this decision is up to Dr. Bob and he may decide one of those three or have something entirely different as a response.
Now, I will have to say this situation has made me really consider how posts **are** used, BUT, how they **can** be used is spelled out clearly.
I think if a particular poster has a difficulty with the use of their post or posts, I think it's well within "rights" to request any number of solutions to what they find may find problematic, but I still hold that the opening page information on the boards is purpose, functional, and behavioral expectations info for all users and should be solely of the site owner's composition.
I could be wrong, however...
Glydin
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 13:37:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-namusd, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 12:56:43
Glydin,
You wrote,[...expection info for all users...].
That is one of the reasons that I am requesting that I be afforded the opportunity to have my response included in the opening page.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 13:57:19
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post-exfousrs » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 13:37:45
...expection info for all users.
Hi Lou,
I'm thinking more of a statement of what Dr. Bob's purpose and expectations are as the site owner.
I'm not implying your ideas or thoughts wouldn't be great, but if you or I had an "part" to the opening page, don't you think that text would be reflective of "our" preceived purpose and expectations?
Glydin
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 14:11:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-exfousrs » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 13:57:19
Glydin,
You wrote,[...but if you had a "part"...].
I would not be posting what my expectations could be for the faith forum in my proposed response.
I am requesting that I be afforded the opportunity to write a response to what is written, not to add or delete what is already written.
Lou
Posted by pegasus on December 23, 2004, at 14:48:45
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post-respntowhtiswrtn » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 14:11:17
So, if your response wouldn't be about expectations for the faith forum, what would it be about? I'm curious, too. You've said it would be "a response to what is written", but there is a lot of stuff written there, and many possible responses. Maybe if you outlined the content of your response, and which what part of Dr. Bob's text you'd be responding to (or if it's the content of quoted posts that you'd be responding to), it would help Dr. Bob decide if he wants to allow you to add your message to that page. And also prevent misunderstandings like the one you seem to be having with Glydin. Just a suggestion.
pegasus
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 15:04:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-respntowhtiswr » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on December 23, 2004, at 14:48:45
pegasus,
You wrote,[...outlined the content of the response...].
I would think that if I was to be offered the opportunity to post my response based upon what the content of my response was to be, then I believe that I could do that. But there is the possibility that Dr. Hsiung could decline my request regardless of what the content might be, and if so, then I think that the outline could be done after we find that out.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 15:27:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-respntowhtiswr » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on December 23, 2004, at 14:48:45
Lou,
I'm thinking despite the fact you and I do not agree on this, I've actually been very pleased with the level of "decency" and civility we have mantained. I would like to keep it that way. I do not feel I've misunderstood your point and I don't feel you've misunderstood mine.
Therefore...
I'll await Dr. Bob's input...
Glydin
Posted by pegasus on December 23, 2004, at 15:53:57
In reply to Lou's response to the post by pegasus-otconrespo » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 15:04:38
Sounds fair. I was just curious what you'd want to say.
pegasus
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 17:34:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post-respntowhtiswr » Lou Pilder, posted by pegasus on December 23, 2004, at 14:48:45
pegasus,
You wrote,[...there is a lot...written there...many possible responses...].
Are you ,then, possibly seeing that what is written could deserve a response from me or someone else? If so, could you identify anything in the text as such?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 17:45:33
In reply to Lou--, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 15:27:49
Gliden,
You wrote,[...you and I do not agree on this...].
Is there a possibility that further discussion could effect an agreeing to this?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 18:17:34
In reply to Lou-'s reply to Glydin-yaidna » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 17:45:33
> Is there a possibility that further discussion could effect an agreeing to this?
Lou,
I appreciate that offer, but I'm thinking sometimes an impasse is met where agreeing to disagree may be the best way to go. I am respectful of your views, but I don't agree and you have been respectful to me, but I'm thinking you aren't going to agree with my views.
This discussion has been very interesting and thought provoking for me.
Glydin
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 19:14:47
In reply to Re: Lou-'s reply to Glydin-yaidna » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on December 23, 2004, at 18:17:34
Glydin,
I appreciated the discussion that we had. I am always open to any further discussion at your request. As for now, I agree that we can agree to disagree.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2004, at 21:54:15
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post-fof » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 11:01:20
> Dr. Hsiung's opening page of the faith board offers links to click on -guidlines and spacific examples being what I am referring to. The links focus in part on my foundation of my faith and my faith,IMO, is part of the subject. I feel that since this is done without my response being able to be read there...
If you reply to one of those posts, your response would then be linked to from there...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2004, at 8:26:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2004, at 21:54:15
Dr. Hsiung,,
You wrote,[...replying to one of those posts would have your response linked...].
I am requesting that I be afforded an opportunity to have my response posted at the end of your statement on the opening page of the faith board so that one reading the faith board could have the opportunity ot click on one link and not be requierd to click on more than one link to see my response so that there could be more opportunity for posters here to be informed about what I propose to post.
In our discussion about what you posted that is attributed to Jean Jacques Rousseau, you made it so that one needed to click on more than one link to see the statment. I have not understood that , but if you are saying that making two clicks a requierment to see something makes it different, then I think that there could be a difference here also and that is one of the reasons that I am requesting that my response be on the opening page in one click.
Lou
Posted by pegasus on January 3, 2005, at 18:01:35
In reply to Lou's reply to pegasus-posrespon » pegasus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2004, at 17:34:38
Well, I don't know about *deserve* versus *not deserve*. I guess I don't really look at things that way. I'm more of a *need* versus *not need* person. I didn't see anything in the intro page that I thought needed a response. But there are lots of people who are not much like me here, so I can imagine a variety of possible hypothetical responses that others might think were desirable. That's why I was curious about what you would have wanted to say.
pegasus
This is the end of the 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.