![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 9:14:15
Lou,
There has been a lot of discussion about a new rule intended to regulate a certain type of post that most agree you are probably the most frequent writer. I, at least among others, value those particular posts and have learned something from your style.
However, I notice that since the discussion developed, you have focused on another type of posts. Maybe that is because there are not as many matters about which you care to seek more information using that particular style of post.
Nonetheless, I wonder if, in hopes of avoiding implementation of a rule that might limit your (and my) ability to inquire about certain matters when you most need to post such inquiries, you might voluntarily be limiting your use of that method, or alternately, if you are limiting your posts of that type -- specifically requests for administrative clarification about how rules relate to specific posts -- out of sensitivity to widespread expressions of concern.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:02:46
In reply to so's question for Lou, posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 9:14:15
So,
There are much greater issues here to me that you may not be aware of. It is my policy to try to solve them at the lowest possible level and I think that the administrative board is the place for this to start.
If my requests are shilded by haveing me email them to the administration, you and all should know that I have many many emails that have not been replied to me from Dr. Hsiung and if I emailed hum again, what assurance could there be that he would reply to me about those?
Dr. Hsiung has made a rule that disallows me to post a request for determination of many people here by writing that since I requested 3 in the past, even before he made the rule, that they are those that I have to email him about. I have done so and have not receieved all email replys from him.
There are posts here that call me a cancer to the community, a nasty piece of work, and posts that remind me of the horrors of nazisim, posts that the poster church writings depict jews as dirty with germs to harm the group or others, posts that IMO could have the potential to portry me as a scapegoat here, posts that could IMO have the potential to call attention to my affliction of bipolarness, posts that have the potential to advocate that my voice be stilled here by hinting to Dr. Bob to have me expelled.
There are writings By Dr. Hsiung on the faith board that IMO have the potential to have others have the potential to think that the foundation of my faith putd down those of other faiths. Thay would be Ok if the other faiths foundation also put down those of other faiths. My councern is that the foundation of my faith, which is the same as jewdiasim, is a commandment ot me, and not others.. The issue to me is that the christiandom people her can freely write about the foundation of their fait, Jesus, and that is acceptable here but mine is not, for Dr. Hsiunf has written that he would expell me if I posted the foundation of my faith here.
So one could conclude that in order for me to have equal standing here, I have to place my requests on the administration board so that others will know that I object to having the foundation of chriatiandom being allowed when mine is not. If I email them to him, there is the possibility that they will go without being replied to on the board. I could also be expelled for somethong else and then there could be less of a chance for the posts in question to be objected to by someone else. This happpened and there are other ways to still my voice here.
I will continue to have the Voice of Israel here as welllas others voice and will make evry attempt that I can muster that is civil, to stop anyone from using any means to still my voice here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 13:04:57
In reply to so's question for Lou, posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 9:14:15
So, If I read your post to me correctly, is it correct that?:
A. You think that my posts about requesting from Dr. Hsiung a determination are valuable, at least to you. Then do you want my posts to be subject to any policy that could have the effect of deminishing or silencing me from making those requests to Dr. Hsiung on the administrative board?
B. I am now focusing on another type of post. What is that type of post?
C. I am voluntarily limiting my posts like the one's objected to here, out of sympathy to those objecting to them. My answer is, [...in a sense...].
But could you answer this?
If those in that group that want me to only be able to post a limited number, such as 3, do you think that that group of posters should also be limited to 3 posts for their entire group about them wanting to have them limited?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 18:25:26
In reply to Lou's reply to so's question for Lou » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 13:04:57
Lou, I know this question isn't addressed to me and forgive me for butting in, but I for one really like your new posting style. It's a lot easier for me to understand. More fluent I guess. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:34:26
In reply to Lou's reply to so's' post » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:02:46
Folks,
when I think about Dr. Bob and the job he probably has IRL, as well as running this board, I'm pleased that he spends as much time here as he currently does.I think it's unrealistic to expect him to devote himself 24x7 to this board, and to answer as many emails as we choose to write. I think it's appropriate for him to filter and answer what he can, or to make determinations about what's most important. If we inundate him with multiple emails, I think it's just not reasonable to expect him to answer them all immediately.
do you agree?
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:21:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to so's' post » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:34:26
Jen Star,
You wrote,[...{multiple} emails (to Dr. Hsiung....].
Could you clarify what you mean by a {multiple} email?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:49:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to so's' post » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 15, 2005, at 18:34:26
Friends,
It is written that Dr. Hsiung could not moderate this forum 24/7.
That is why I suggested that there be many moderators for each board. My idea about this IMO is not far-fetched.
I think that if graduate credit is offered to students in the field of the forum that they could moderate, that the 500 needed around the world could easily be found.
Lets suppose the social board needed moderators. A notice in some journals of social work or another related field could perhaps bring many respondants. And the psychology board could also have that done.
The administrative board could be filled by grad students in , lets say, Ichtheology. And the med board by pharmacy students.
How about if the faith board filled by different people from different faiths? And the relationship board? And the alternative board?
I think that the doors could have long lines of applicants for these positions.
Then this would free Dr. Hsiung to do more important things and not be obligated to the administration involving posts and such, but to work on more better ways to provide a mental health community.
I think that this world-wide forum could shine as the sun and be a Beacon of Light for those to follow that want to find refuge from the shipwreck that their lives might be in. who knows where the people are that are sinking and are looking for Light to lead them to shore. Could not this Light shine though the fog of dispair? Could not this light shine through the darkness of depression. Could not this Light be lit by us? Someone said it:[...If you can dream it, you can do it...].
Lou
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 19:50:17
In reply to Lou's reply to so's question for Lou » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 13:04:57
> So, If I read your post to me correctly, is it correct that?:
> A. You think that my posts about requesting from Dr. Hsiung a determination are valuable, at least to you. Then do you want my posts to be subject to any policy that could have the effect of deminishing or silencing me from making those requests to Dr. Hsiung on the administrative board?No, not in the least. Others find support and education in other interactions here, but I find you sustained effort to explore the your situation the singularly most supportive interaction on this board, as it informs my effort to continue living in a world, in the most gracious analysis, just doesn't share my values.
> B. I am now focusing on another type of post. What is that type of post?
Maybe they are posts with a bit more prose and wtih a bit less method. It is also probably a bit riskier - maybe not for you emotionally, but in the context of preserving your permission to post here, the more original untried phrases you publish, simply by the law of large numbers, one is more likely to become the subject of administrative criticism.
> C. I am voluntarily limiting my posts like the one's objected to here, out of sympathy to those objecting to them. My answer is, [...in a sense...].I know we are sometimes motivated by mulitiple causes. It's not that I would suggest you are any less sympathetic any other time ... I don't know what it says that I recognize that we are more sympathetic to things we know about. If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
> But could you answer this?
> If those in that group that want me to only be able to post a limited number, such as 3, do you think that that group of posters should also be limited to 3 posts for their entire group about them wanting to have them limited?That would seem equilateral. Fairness often embodies equilateral treatment.
> Lou
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 19:56:14
In reply to Lou's reply to so's' post » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:02:46
> So,
> There are much greater issues here to me that you may not be aware of.
I am probably not completely aware of the particulars of the issues as they affect you, but I am cognizant that when you bring a matter to this board, I can usually find a sound logical foundation to your interest, no matter what entry I take in reading interactions that involve you.However, I do have a lifelong familiarity with the intercultural issues you cite, and my familiarity is informed by an awareness that the types of conflict you are concerned about are not limited to a conflict between the particular ethnic and spiritual groups that concern you, but are typical of those that can be found almost anywhere cultural and spiritual values are part of a sustained asymetrical conflict. That's why I am so interested in seeing your interests in this matter recognized and served.
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 20:27:48
In reply to Re: so's reply to Lou's post » Lou Pilder, posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 19:56:14
Lou again I love the format of your posting now. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 20:39:37
In reply to Lou's reply to so's' post » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 10:02:46
> So,
> It is my policy to try to solve them at the lowest possible level and I think that the administrative board is the place for this to start.Low levels are often a good place to start, and if ever you find cause to make your case at some other level, you will be able to do so in confidence that you have thoroughly attempted to work it out at this level. I hope you have the resources and fortitude to hang with it whatever it takes.
> If my requests are shilded by haveing me email them to the administration, you and all should know that I have many many emails that have not been replied to me from Dr. Hsiung and if I emailed hum again, what assurance could there be that he would reply to me about those?
> Dr. Hsiung has made a rule that disallows me to post a request for determination of many people here by writing that since I requested 3 in the past, even before he made the rule, that they are those that I have to email him about. I have done so and have not receieved all email replys from him.
This is not the first I've heard about frustration surrounding people's interest in the site compared to the time he has budgeted for the site. I've also heard some things about e-mail exchanges (or e-mail submissions) consistent with what you describe.I wanted to acknowledge that your's is not the first story I've heard about that -- I omitted it from my first replies to your two posts, but I had to wait till someone else posted because of the three-consecutive rule. Sometimes things can be quite arbitrary, and not always consistent.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 21:37:57
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-mult » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:21:52
Lou,
I certainly can't assume what JenStar meant by her use of the word multiple, but I interpreted it to mean more than one.gg
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 21:57:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jen Star-mult » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 21:37:57
> Lou,
> I certainly can't assume what JenStar meant by her use of the word multiple, but I interpreted it to mean more than one.
>
> ggI often get more than one e-mail, but I'm not as often inundated by e-mails.
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.