![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:27:28
In reply to response to notfred's post, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:11:45
>
> You can't blame a guy for trying, though.
Please don't tell my how I should think or feel.
I think it demonstrates something of the character of the owner of this site to allow such a train of petitions to be posted and archived.
Or poor administration that allows this board to
be hijacked every year or so when lous block is over.I am glad someone is monitoring the boards for iniquities.
>Being a jew myself, I cringe at how Judaism is being used here, in the context claiming antisemitism when people do not agree with Lou.
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:30:31
In reply to University involvment-the Gayssot Act, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 11:25:11
> Friends,
> As if there is involvment by the u of Chi in the site, I think that there is because I do not think that the disclaimer now says that they do not have an involvment, but that Dr. Hsiung is the owner.The uni does not have anything to do with this site.
> But there is the Gayyssot Act of 1990 which says that it is illegal in France to have;
> [...any discrimination founded on membership to an ethnic group ...or religion...is prohibited...]The board is not in France.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 19, 2006, at 11:51:13
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:27:28
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2006, at 11:52:13
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:27:28
> Or poor administration that allows this board to
> be hijacked every year or so when lous block is over.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
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
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override or upgrade deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:56:58
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:27:28
> > You can't blame a guy for trying, though.
> Please don't tell my how I should think or feel.I didn't think I had done that, but I apologize if that's how my words were to be interpreted.
> > I think it demonstrates something of the character of the owner of this site to allow such a train of petitions to be posted and archived.
> Or poor administration that allows this board to
> be hijacked every year or so when lous block is over.I think the rules for posting must be consistent and apply equally to everyone. How would you propose that the board be made impervious to hijacking?
> > I am glad someone is monitoring the boards for iniquities.
> Being a jew myself, I cringe at how Judaism is being used here, in the context claiming antisemitism when people do not agree with Lou.I don't think that all of his contentions revolve around disagreements. However, I do worry sometimes that the persistent claiming of antisemitism where there may be none might yield a desensitization to the seriousness of the accusation, or perhaps even an unintentional arousal of antisemitism. I am not judging Lou Pilder's claims here, though.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 12:06:07
In reply to University involvment-the Gayssot Act, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 11:25:11
> But there is the Gayyssot Act of 1990
This act seemingly refers only to the denial of the existence of "crimes against humanity" and to discriminative membership practices. I see neither of these things here.
- Scott
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 12:11:01
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post » notfred, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:56:58
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
(First Corinthians 13:1)how odd
of lou
to choose
psychobable
Posted by Phillipa on August 19, 2006, at 12:41:30
In reply to Re: University involvment-the Gayssot Act, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 11:30:31
Scott same thing I was gonna say this is the USA not France. Love Phillipa
Posted by laima on August 19, 2006, at 16:19:12
In reply to Re: University involvment-the Gayssot Act » notfred, posted by Phillipa on August 19, 2006, at 12:41:30
So- The U of C has nothing to do with the site, I gather? It's just that Dr. Bob happens to be a proff there. Does the site have anything to do with the University's servers?
Posted by Racer on August 19, 2006, at 17:50:31
In reply to Re: University involvment-the Gayssot Act, posted by laima on August 19, 2006, at 16:19:12
>
> So- The U of C has nothing to do with the site, I gather? It's just that Dr. Bob happens to be a proff there. Does the site have anything to do with the University's servers?
>No, the site has nothing to do with University of Chicago.
Years back, when the site first started -- back in 1998, I think it was -- this was one bulletin board in Dr Bob's space on the UofC server. But he moved it to his own domain years ago. At this point, there's no relation whatsoever with the university. In the beginning, it was in their domain, but was never their site in any way.
So, in the beginning, there was a very slight connection to the university -- kinda like if you put up a webpage in your web-space on your ISP's server it would have their name on it -- like "myname.earthlink.com" or "www.aol.com/myname." Otherwise, there was never any real connection to the university, and there's not even that connection now.
Hope that helps clear it up for you.
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 19:19:12
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post » notfred, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:56:58
>
> I think the rules for posting must be consistent and apply equally to everyone. How would you propose that the board be made impervious to hijacking?
>You can't cover all bases with rules. Other MI boards (Psycentral, crazymeds) would of shut this down quickly.
Posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 19:39:55
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 19:19:12
>
> >
> > I think the rules for posting must be consistent and apply equally to everyone. How would you propose that the board be made impervious to hijacking?
> >
>
> You can't cover all bases with rules. Other MI boards (Psycentral, crazymeds) would of shut this down quickly.
How do they do that?
- Scott
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 19:41:59
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post » notfred, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 19:39:55
>
> How do they do that?
>
>
> - Scott
Good administration.
Posted by Racer on August 19, 2006, at 19:49:06
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post, posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 19:41:59
>
> >
> > How do they do that?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Good administration.
>To me, that implies that Babble does not have good administration. I realize that many people believe that to be true, but I think it's got very different administration -- for good and ill.
I've been disappointed by some actions on some of those other sites, and I've been pretty outraged by some of them, too. None of them are perfect, and I think a lot of people would disagree with the means used to shut down discussions like the ones in question here.
The whole online community thing is still new enough that we're all feeling our way along, still trying to figure out what works best. Dr Bob has chosen one way to try, other sites have tried other ways. Here at Babble, there's a fair amount of evolution regarding rules, which I consider a good thing.
But what I think doesn't matter -- I just wanted to ask if we could address this as "Different Administration" rather than "Good Administration," or even "Better Administration." Just to, you know, keep things civil?
Posted by sunnydays on August 19, 2006, at 20:19:18
In reply to I disagree... » notfred, posted by Racer on August 19, 2006, at 19:49:06
I think that Dr. Bob has done a remarkable job administrating here. This is a huge site, and yet he manages to keep it for the most part civil and supportive, at least in my opinion. I have said before I would not be able to post here without the civility rules. It kind of guarantees a base level of safety for me. That kind of guarantee has been so lacking in most of my relationships in life that to be guaranteed that my relationships here will be at the very least civil is important to me. For me, writing is a very important part of my life, and feels more revealing than anything I would ever say out loud, in some ways. I need the civility rules in order to feel safe enough to share anything I have written with people who are pretty much strangers to me.
sunnydays
Posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 20:53:22
In reply to I disagree... » notfred, posted by Racer on August 19, 2006, at 19:49:06
How mant times does lou have to get blocked ? AFAICT
he is the only person to receive multiple 1 year blocks. Is it fair to lou to do this process over and over and over and over and over and over ? Waiting for some violation of a rule that may or may not be in the FAQ to deal with this problem for another year.
Posted by Racer on August 20, 2006, at 0:27:58
In reply to Re: I disagree..., posted by notfred on August 19, 2006, at 20:53:22
> How mant times does lou have to get blocked ? AFAICT
> he is the only person to receive multiple 1 year blocks.This reminds me of students saying, "my teacher gave me a C," rather than, "I only earned a C in that teacher's class." I know that other have been blocked for a year, I'm not sure how many others have been blocked for a year multiple times, but I am sure that they would be if they came back and broke the rules again.
Which is not to say that I agree with the blocking policies, by the way. It's only to say that I don't think it's fair to leave out the part about individual behavior when discussing the blocks.
>Is it fair to lou to do this process over and over and over and over and over and over ? Waiting for some violation of a rule that may or may not be in the FAQ to deal with this problem for another year.
Do you have an alternative to offer?
That's where the problem lies, after all -- how can any situation be resolved fairly, without singling any one person out? Yes, it's possible to say, "hey, you! You don't fit in, go away." But who would you say it to? Would it be me, because I'm opinionated? Would it be Dinah, because she has a dog? Would it be GG, because she likes to get her hands in dirt? Would you direct it towards SLS, because he doesn't respond to medication? Or would you try to codify rules that applied to behavior? And say that everyone who is willing to modify their behavior to stay within those rules is welcome here?
I know it's frustrating that the FAQ isn't up to date, and that there isn't a quick and dirty civility rule list. That's partly the nature of the beast -- since the rules evolve, there is always a lag between the rule and the FAQ showing it. If you're concerned about that, perhaps you could volunteer to help update the FAQ?
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 0:44:14
In reply to Re: University involvment-the Gayssot Act » laima, posted by Racer on August 19, 2006, at 17:50:31
Thanks! I used to know some people in Systems there...so I got a little worried about privacy for a moment.
> No, the site has nothing to do with University of Chicago.
>
> Years back, when the site first started -- back in 1998, I think it was -- this was one bulletin board in Dr Bob's space on the UofC server. But he moved it to his own domain years ago. At this point, there's no relation whatsoever with the university. In the beginning, it was in their domain, but was never their site in any way.
>
> So, in the beginning, there was a very slight connection to the university -- kinda like if you put up a webpage in your web-space on your ISP's server it would have their name on it -- like "myname.earthlink.com" or "www.aol.com/myname." Otherwise, there was never any real connection to the university, and there's not even that connection now.
>
> Hope that helps clear it up for you.
Posted by notfred on August 20, 2006, at 5:07:05
In reply to Re: I disagree... » notfred, posted by Racer on August 20, 2006, at 0:27:58
>
> That's where the problem lies, after all -- how can any situation be resolved fairly, without singling any one person out? Yes, it's possible to say, "hey, you! You don't fit in, go away." But who would you say it to? Would it be me, because I'm opinionated? Would it be Dinah, because she has a dog? Would it be GG, because she likes to get her hands in dirt?
reductum ad absurdum arguments are invalid.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 8:59:47
In reply to Re: University involvment-the Gayssot Act » Racer, posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 0:44:14
Friends,
It is written here,[...this site has nothing to do with the univerity of Chicago...]
Really? How can that be concluded? Has not evryone known that this site was innitially research in the dept. of psychiatry at the university?
I spoke with the university representative and asked for the server to be removed from university property and that a disclaimer added after Dr.Hsiung's email address. After my request, the statement that is after his email appeared. I thought that that could stop the fostering of defamtion toward Jews, but I also asked the univerity to have Dr Hsiung change the name of the forum.
You see, after the server was moved off of university property, that did nothing to change the content of the site and others could stil think that the site was a university sponsored site. And the disclaimer does not say that the university does not endorse the site. It just says that they are not the owner of the site.
You see, would it not be illegal for any university to sponsor a site that considers statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings in the form of the doctrine that the Jews killed Christ is to be considerd civil by the university representative as in this case Dr. Hsiung? A university can not foster racial hatred. A university can not discriminate. A university can not allow its employees to expose hate in any form to a group of peoples. If a university has a forum open to the public, it cannot deride the Jews who are guests there.
Lou
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 10:56:43
In reply to Lou's response to laima's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 8:59:47
Two comments- The U of C is a private, not public university.
And there many Jewish students and faculty there.The rest I think has been plenty discussed and I won't add anything more.
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...this site has nothing to do with the univerity of Chicago...]
> Really? How can that be concluded? Has not evryone known that this site was innitially research in the dept. of psychiatry at the university?
> I spoke with the university representative and asked for the server to be removed from university property and that a disclaimer added after Dr.Hsiung's email address. After my request, the statement that is after his email appeared. I thought that that could stop the fostering of defamtion toward Jews, but I also asked the univerity to have Dr Hsiung change the name of the forum.
> You see, after the server was moved off of university property, that did nothing to change the content of the site and others could stil think that the site was a university sponsored site. And the disclaimer does not say that the university does not endorse the site. It just says that they are not the owner of the site.
> You see, would it not be illegal for any university to sponsor a site that considers statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings in the form of the doctrine that the Jews killed Christ is to be considerd civil by the university representative as in this case Dr. Hsiung? A university can not foster racial hatred. A university can not discriminate. A university can not allow its employees to expose hate in any form to a group of peoples. If a university has a forum open to the public, it cannot deride the Jews who are guests there.
> Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 14:22:35
In reply to Re: response to notfred's post » notfred, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:56:58
I have never been accused of being a bigot until recently.
It's an accusation that bothers me very, very much - and one that I feel is completely undeserved.
Hence (partly) my avoidance of the board lately.
"However, I do worry sometimes that the persistent claiming of antisemitism where there may be none might yield a desensitization ..."
Posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 17:12:30
In reply to Re: sensitizing » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 14:22:35
Please quit.
You have instructed me not to answer you and to send any replies to your attourney, so please quit emailing me.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 17:45:10
In reply to Re: To the person who keeps emailing me, posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 17:12:30
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 12:04:31
In reply to response to notfred's post, posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 11:11:45
> > Lou,
> >
> > It seems to me you have endless requirements for this site to suit **you**. perhaps this site is not well suited for you. This site is not here for your sole use.
> >
> > You have been making the same requests for years, of this site. You go over the same material again and again, with no sucess. What does this tell you ?
>
> You can't blame a guy for trying, though. I think it demonstrates something of the character of the owner of this site to allow such a train of petitions to be posted and archived. I am glad someone is monitoring the boards for iniquities.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
Let us look at the aspects of the above.
One aspect is that it is written here that[...this site is not here for your sole use...]
I ask, am I telling anyone here that they can not use this site?
Then it is written,[...you have been making the same requests for years...no sucsess...What does this tell you?...]
I am asking what it has the potential to tell others and you could email me with your opinion if you like.
Then it is written,[...you can't blame a guy for trying...I am glad someone is monitoring the boards for iniquities...]. I ask, what are those?
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
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.