![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2006, at 20:36:58
DR. Hsiung,
In our dialog here concerning your request to me to ask somone else first before I send you a post for approval to post or not, I thought that I had asked you in a post what your reason was for that. I thought that you replied to me in a post.
Now I can not locate it, even by checking all posts by you from the innitial thread concerning that.
I thought that the post by you said something like something concerning other people's feelings.
I ask:
A. Do you know if a post of tht nature, if there was one, has been deleted here?
B. If so, could you post here the reason(s) for the deletion?
C. If you are not aware of a deletion of a post of that nature, could you investigate , if you can not locate it, how the post became missing if there was one?
D. If it is found, or if you find that it is missing, could you either post it here, if you remember that there was one of that nature, or restore the post to its rightfull thread?
Lou
Posted by jylisnotlaughing on December 9, 2006, at 22:12:43
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2006, at 20:36:58
"In our dialog here concerning your request to me to ask somone else first before I send you a post for approval to post or not"..
i would like for bob to addres this ...i would rather be blocked (which would be 3-9+4+11-7=43days)before i would ask another if they would approve my thoughts.............
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 6:10:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-, posted by jylisnotlaughing on December 9, 2006, at 22:12:43
> "In our dialog here concerning your request to me to ask somone else first before I send you a post for approval to post or not"..
> i would like for bob to addres this ...i would rather be blocked (which would be 3-9+4+11-7=43days)before i would ask another if they would approve my thoughts.............
>Friends,
The grammatical structure of the above post could be interpreted IMO to mean that the author is saying that I have a valid concern concerning Dr. Hsiung's statement to me to [..ask someone else first...] before I send a post for pre-approval to him per the TOS here.
The author writes to Dr. Hsiung,[...I would like >this< addressd here...] and,[...I would rather be blocked..before I would ask another >if {they} would|>approve< my thoughts|...].
If you are going to respond to this thread, could you consider some of the backgroung concerning this?
Here are a few posts that IMO are relevant to this discussion.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693274.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693290.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/695254.html
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2006, at 13:55:57
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2006, at 20:36:58
Hi Lou,
This is the only only post I recall where Dr. Bob gave a reason, in the initial discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/688881.html
My understanding of this post, FWIW (not much I suppose, as I gather you seek clarification from Dr. Bob personally on this matter) was that it was *not* for official *approval* (so no need for a deputy, although a deputy could be an option.) Instead, for another poster (someone with experience with the rules here - left up to your (Lou's) choosing?) to give sort of a *second opinion* - but give it first. He did mention wanting another perspective.
And as others (I forget who) have said, I read between the lines that because of demands on his time (i.e. he can't/won't promise a final reply in any certain # of days, 100% of the time) you might get the question resolved more quickly by having another review the proposed post first.
Perhaps the 'someone else' could save time for Dr. Bob by (if necessary) pointing out and/or summarizing any potential civility issues they noticed with your post before he (Dr. Bob) found time to consider it? Economizing time could be as aspect of the value of the idea that *two heads are better than one?*
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 16:13:22
In reply to Re: Lou's request to DR. Hsiung- » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2006, at 13:55:57
10derHeart,
You wrote,[...this is the only post that I recall..(asks you to send it to someone else first before you send it to him)..you seek clarification from Dr. Hsiung personally..others have said...his time..two heads are better than one...].
I originally requested this at least on September 22 and perhaps before that. It is now December 10. He had the opportunity when he responded to my request to accept it then and instead asked me to do another step before I send it to him. Have you read my response here about that?
I would like to follow thre rules here and be able to know if there are extra rules for me here or not. The TOS here in the FAQ writes that members can always send a post to Dr. Hsiung and there is no mention that I see of an extra step to that.
I would like for the post in this thread by jylisnotlaughing to be looked at again. This member here writes,[...I would rather be blocked before I would ask another if they would approve my thoughts...].
At this time, my request to Dr. Hsiung was answered as to if his request was a suggestion or a requirement just a couple of days ago.But I am still unsure if I can send it to him without first sending it to {one person that will email with me}. You see, then there was another condition. That was that one could volunteer to email with me, so that is different than asking someone first on the board which sets up another situation for me to send it to him, does it not?
Dr. Hsiung has said that itis a suggestion, but in your opinion, does that mean that he has recsinded his request to me or not?
There is much more to this and I thank jylisnotlaughing for posting her/his thoughts about this, for if what the poster meant by that is what I think that the grammatical structure of the statment purports, then that poster may feel what I feel about this which validates my concern here about this.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 16:38:38
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 16:13:22
Friends,
It has been months and when all the opportunties that Dr. Hsiung has had to accept my post, I was met with another step to me to follow ,>first<, before I send it to him. I have had to wait to get to find out if what he wanted me to do first, was a request or a requirement, for when he asks another to rephrase, is that not a requirement? So is it not reasonable for me to want to know if his request is or is not a requirement? And were there not opportunities for him to clarify that to me early on in this discussion? Can you read jylisnotlaughing's post in this thread again and perhps see what the importance is of me being able to send my post to him without sending it by email to someone else first? Is the idiom,[...two heads >are< better than one...] an absolute fact? Could it not be that two heads are not better than one? Is that saying saying that I do not have a good understanding of the rules here and that I need someone else to help me before I send it to him?
Lou
Posted by Honore on December 10, 2006, at 17:37:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 16:38:38
Lou, here's one post from Dr. Bob, written on Sept. 24th, which states clearly that he's not requiring you to ask anyone else. He made a suggestion, which you were free to follow, or disregard. If you choose (or had at any time chosen) to disregard it, you could (or can now) send him your request without the involvement of anyone else.
So, I would encourage you to do that, if that's what you want to do.
You don't seem to me to be under any obligation to ask anyone to read or even know about anything you send Bob.
From the Archives:"Re: Lou's reply Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:51:45
In reply to Lou's reply toDr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2006, at 19:17:50
> Could you tell me who the someone else could be that could have the authority to approve or disapprove the post?
I wasn't thinking someone with authority, in order to obtain approval, just someone who's been around for a while, for an independent perspective. You know, two heads are better than one.
Bob"
Hope that helps.
Honore
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 20:20:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart » Lou Pilder, posted by Honore on December 10, 2006, at 17:37:16
> Lou, here's one post from Dr. Bob, written on Sept. 24th, which states clearly that he's not requiring you to ask anyone else. He made a suggestion, which you were free to follow, or disregard. If you choose (or had at any time chosen) to disregard it, you could (or can now) send him your request without the involvement of anyone else.
>
> So, I would encourage you to do that, if that's what you want to do.
>
> You don't seem to me to be under any obligation to ask anyone to read or even know about anything you send Bob.
>
>
> From the Archives:
>
> "Re: Lou's reply Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:51:45
>
> In reply to Lou's reply toDr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2006, at 19:17:50
>
> > Could you tell me who the someone else could be that could have the authority to approve or disapprove the post?
>
> I wasn't thinking someone with authority, in order to obtain approval, just someone who's been around for a while, for an independent perspective. You know, two heads are better than one.
>
> Bob"
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> HonoreHonore,
I would like for this post to be considered in this discussion.
It is my request on September, 13. This ,I think could be relevant to this discussion. Notice that my request is because new rules were made when I rejoined the community. The new rules had a rule that I could not post content that showed historical state-sponsored antisemitism. So the issue ,IMO, is between me and Dr. Hsiung alone about what a link could or could not have relative to his new rule about content showing historical antisemitism. Now I would like to post a link from the ADL that is a response to accusations made toward the Jews here and I would like to have Dr. Hsiung review it beforehand.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685632.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 20:34:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart » Lou Pilder, posted by Honore on December 10, 2006, at 17:37:16
Honore,
I would like to have this post considered in this discussion with the attention that the date is October 16. There have been opportunities that DR. Hsiung has had to reply to other questions and he has done so. The opportunity presents itself here for him to clarify my original request for him to review it beforhand. In this opportunity, he asks would anyone like to volunteer to be asked. Could he not, in your opinion, taken the opportunity presented to simply answer my question as to if I could send the post beforehand and just say that he is only suggesting and that I could send it to him then without asking someone else first? If not,in your opinion, why not?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/695254.html
Posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2006, at 22:18:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2006, at 20:20:39
>>So the issue ,IMO, is between me and Dr. Hsiung alone<<
>>Now I would like to post a link from the ADL that is a response to accusations made toward the Jews here and I would like to have Dr. Hsiung review it beforehand<<Then send him the link to review. The sooner done, the sooner he might be able to get to it, right?
Because here he's told you the 'someone else' issue was/is only a suggestion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711785.html
Posted by 64bowtie on December 11, 2006, at 1:18:12
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2006, at 20:36:58
> DR. Hsiung,
> In our dialog here concerning your request to me to ask somone else first before I send you a post for approval to post or not, I thought that I had asked you in a post what your reason was for that. I thought that you replied to me in a post.
> Now I can not locate it, even by checking all posts by you from the innitial thread concerning that.
> I thought that the post by you said something like something concerning other people's feelings.
> I ask:
> A. Do you know if a post of tht nature, if there was one, has been deleted here?
> B. If so, could you post here the reason(s) for the deletion?
> C. If you are not aware of a deletion of a post of that nature, could you investigate , if you can not locate it, how the post became missing if there was one?
> D. If it is found, or if you find that it is missing, could you either post it here, if you remember that there was one of that nature, or restore the post to its rightfull thread?
> Lou**********************************
Lou,
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........
Rod
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2006, at 8:13:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2006, at 22:18:23
10der,
You wrote,[...send him the link..the sooner..he..get to it, right?..he's told you..issue..only a suggestion...].
But did you not think that his asking me to send it to someone else first was in some way reasoned to be concerning the saving of his time? If that is what you thought that his reasoning was to not accept the post on September around the 13th without asking me to ask someone else first before I send it to him, then could we look at how credible that could be?I ask;
A. Was there more time spent asking me to ask someone else first than if he would have accepted the post on the 13th?
B. If I can send it to him now, on the 11th of December, what, in your opinion, could be why it could be that I was told to send it to someone else first on around the 13th of September to save time?
C. How credible, in your opinon, is the opinion that he wanted to save time as a reason for him to ask me to ask someone else first before I send it to him? (Lou's note>Dr. Hsiung did not give that, as far as I know, as a reason to ask me to send it to someone else first before I send it to him).
D. In your opinion, if the post in question that I would like to send beforehand involves showing state-sponsored antisemitism,and that has been told to me will not be permitted here, what in your opinion is why that is different from someone posting here content that shows state-sponsored racism?
As far as sending it to him now, I am awaiting his reply to me concerning what the difference is that content in a post here that shows state-sponsored racism is permitted, but showing content that shows state-sponsored antisemitism is not.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2006, at 8:29:40
In reply to » Lou Pilder », posted by 64bowtie on December 11, 2006, at 1:18:12
Rod,
YOu wrote,Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Could you elaborate more about that?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2006, at 16:28:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derHeart on December 10, 2006, at 22:18:23
> >>So the issue ,IMO, is between me and Dr. Hsiung alone<<
> >>Now I would like to post a link from the ADL that is a response to accusations made toward the Jews here and I would like to have Dr. Hsiung review it beforehand<<
>
> Then send him the link to review. The sooner done, the sooner he might be able to get to it, right?
>
> Because here he's told you the 'someone else' issue was/is only a suggestion:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711785.html
>
> 10der,
You wrote for me to send the post for review to DR. Hsiung because he has posted that him writing for me to send it to someone else first is only a suggestion.
I ask:
A. Have you received ,unbeknownst to me, communication from DR. Hsiung that he says that he has rescinded his statement to me to ask someone else first?
B. Could not him posting that itis a suggestion still carry the import that I am to still ask someone else first?
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on December 14, 2006, at 22:13:23
In reply to Lou's reply to 10der-olyasugstn » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2006, at 16:28:35
> I ask:
> A. Have you received ,unbeknownst to me, communication from DR. Hsiung that he says that he has rescinded his statement to me to ask someone else first?No.
> B. Could not him posting that itis a suggestion still carry the import that I am to still ask someone else first?
"Ask someone else first" sounds like a command, or order, to me. He's clarified it's a suggestion, which is *not* mandatory, but optional, as far as I understand the meaning of words. That's all the possible insight I can offer on this topic.
Posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2006, at 17:54:34
In reply to Lou's reply to 64 bowtie-283?,327? » 64bowtie, posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2006, at 8:29:40
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.