![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 54. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:12:37
DR. Hsiung,
Could you post in this thread any exceptions other than your rule of 3 that you have, if any, in regards to a member using the {report feature},that will deny the member requesting about the post a reply from you or a deputy and that there will also not be a post by you or a deputy in the thread in question?
Lou Pilder
Posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 15:46:32
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -excpttoreportfeatr?, posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:12:37
Lou,
May I ask why you post so many obscure questions? I do not understand the purpose of these posts.
Ed
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 16:35:33
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -excpttoreportfeatr?, posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 15:46:32
> Lou,
>
> May I ask why you post so many obscure questions? I do not understand the purpose of these posts.
>
> EdEd,
You wrote,[...why..{so many}...|obscure|...not understand the >purpose<...]
In looking at the grammatical structure of your statement to me, there could be different connotations to the words and phrases in your post. Could you elaborate some more so that I can have a better understanding of your post to me as to the following?
A. In {so many} , which are the posts in particular that you are referring to?
B. What in particular is >obscure< that I could have the opportunity to make clearer to you?
C. The purpose of the administrative forum is to discuss policy and other aspects of the forum. If this is what you mean by {purpose}, could you post which post(s) you would like to know the purpose and why? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 17:50:38
In reply to Lou's reply to ed for clarification-nothepupos » ed_uk, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 16:35:33
Lou,
Your last post to me was a perfect example of obscurity! I find your posts on admin very difficult to understand.
Ed
Posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 17:52:52
In reply to Lou's reply to ed for clarification-nothepupos » ed_uk, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 16:35:33
Lou,
Purely out of interest, do you have a diagnosis of any specific mental health problem?
Ed
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 19:40:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed for clarification-nothepupos, posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 17:50:38
> Lou,
>
> Your last post to me was a perfect example of obscurity! I find your posts on admin very difficult to understand.
>
> EdEd,
you wrote,[...post..was a..example of obscurity...difficult to understand...].
Could you point out what is it that you find difficulty in understanding? If you could , then I could have the opportunity to respond to give more understanding to what you think is obscure.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 20:19:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed for clarification-nothepupos, posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 17:50:38
> Lou,
>
> Your last post to me was a perfect example of obscurity! I find your posts on admin very difficult to understand.
>
> EdFriends,
If you are considering responding to this thread, could you take into consideration the following?
There are two sets of posts identified by Ed here as posts that he writes are examples of obscuruty.
The one set has one member post, which is identified by Ed as the {last post by me to him}. The other set could then have many members, even could be IMO all other posts by me in question here excluding thae last post in question.
I would like then to focus on {only my last post to Ed} if are going to post what you think is difficult to understand or if you are going to post that you think that my last post to Ed is clear to you.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2007, at 1:13:58
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -excpttoreportfeatr?, posted by ed_uk on January 26, 2007, at 15:46:32
> May I ask why you post so many obscure questions?
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ed_uk on January 27, 2007, at 10:51:48
In reply to Lou's reply to ed for clarification-difculunstan » ed_uk, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 19:40:50
Hi Lou
>Could you point out what is it that you find difficulty in understanding?
So many symbols.........{[,<>.....A.B.C.......,<>} etc. It all seems very complex.
Ed
Posted by ed_uk on January 27, 2007, at 10:58:43
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -excpttoreportfeatr?, posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:12:37
Hi Lou
I didn't find your last post to me difficult to understand. By 'obscure' I meant unusual.
Here is an example of a post that I didn't understand.......
'DR. Hsiung,
Could you post in this thread any exceptions other than your rule of 3 that you have, if any, in regards to a member using the {report feature},that will deny the member requesting about the post a reply from you or a deputy and that there will also not be a post by you or a deputy in the thread in question?
Lou Pilder'Ed
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 1:04:13
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung -excpttoreportfeatr?, posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 8:12:37
> Could you post in this thread any exceptions other than your rule of 3 that you have, if any, in regards to a member using the {report feature},that will deny the member requesting about the post a reply from you or a deputy and that there will also not be a post by you or a deputy in the thread in question?
I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
Bob
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 28, 2007, at 9:37:28
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 1:04:13
> > Could you post in this thread any exceptions other than your rule of 3 that you have, if any, in regards to a member using the {report feature},that will deny the member requesting about the post a reply from you or a deputy and that there will also not be a post by you or a deputy in the thread in question?
>
> I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
In your reply to me above, if there are no other exceptions for the administration to not reply, then are you saying any of the following?
A. We confirm a notificaion from you from the report feature and we will reply to you or post in the thread and are sorry that we have taken so long to do so.
B. We have not received a notification from you from the report feature in the last 9 days.
C. We confirm that we have received from you from the report feature in the last 9 days but do not want to {at this time},but will respond today
D. We confirm a notification from you from the report feature in the last 9 days but we think that it will be more helpfull to not reply or post in the thread in question now, but later, which means that there is not an exception but that some requests , like yours, we could put off indefinitly from responding to.
E. We confirm a notification from you from the report feature in the last 9 days, and also a reminder from you, but if we reply to you then we would be bringing the past into the present. We think that this is not an exception to our rule here, but I know that it could be interpreted that way, but we still think that it is reasonable for us to not reply to you or to post in the thread in question and not consider it to be an exception.
F. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 23:02:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou PIlder on January 28, 2007, at 9:37:28
> > I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
Are you saying that you've notified us and nothing's happened? If so, please notify us again. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 5:46:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 23:02:48
> > > I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
>
> Are you saying that you've notified us and nothing's happened? If so, please notify us again. Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...notify us again...].
I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your reply to me here. I sent in the last 11 days and a reminder using the feature here for such and the procedure for such.
Let us look at one of your deputies statement that provides additional procedures for when you do not respond to one that uses the report feature here.
She writes that one could post on the administration board that you have used the report feature and there has been no response from the administration, and the time period of such, would be sufficiant to >check< outstanding requests.
If you are saying that I have to notify you again, I could do so if you are also saying that you do not have any requests from me using the report feature, or a reminder to you in the last 11 days, and I am unsure as to if your reply to me is saying that, which I did send using the prescribed feature procedure. The grammatical structure of the statement here by your deputy leads me to believe that there is the potential for those requests from the report feature to be able to be found by, at least her I guess,because she states,[... post on the administration board..please advise..{check |outstanding| requests}...]
If there is a >different standard< for me here to have the requests that I send via the report feature to be responded to by anyone in the administration, then I feel that that is something that I would like for you to declare in this thread to the forum. If the standard to me is the same as others here, then I feel that this post is sufficiant IMO for the administration, or at least your deputy,gardenergirl, to {...check outstanding requests...} and that I do not have to send to notify the administration again.
Here is deputy gardenergirl's post concerning to post on the administration board as being sufficiant IMO to check outstanding requests.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/704120.html
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 16:31:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 23:02:48
> > > I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
>
> Are you saying that you've notified us and nothing's happened? If so, please notify us again. Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
Could your reply to me above say in some way that you are wondering if I have used the report feature to notify the administrators of a post?
I base this on the potential IMO of the grammatical structure of your reply to me in particular with the part that reads,[...are you saying that you have notified us...?].
Now if you agree that you are in some way wondering if I have sent the notification, then let us look at my post to you that your reply to me follows.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2007013/msgs/727401.html
In the post from me above, let us look at part (B).
That part is my request to you as to if you are saying that you have not received a notification from me in the last 9 days.
All the other choices are in some way that you confirm the notification.
My request to you in (B) was if you were saying that you have not received the notification. This is because I did send such a notification using the proper feature and there has been no response to me from the administration. I am unsure as to if you are saying from your reply to me that[(G). you do know of the notification from me but you are asking me to confirm that I sent it to you] or if you mean [(H), that you are saying that you have not seen the notification], or {something else}. The {something else} could be IMO pertaining to the grammatical structure of the second part of your reply to me,[...and nothing has happened...(after I sent it to you)...]. This leads me to think that there is the potential IMO to think that it is understood that I sent the notification, {but that there was no response to me from the administration}. Then there could be some other meaning unbeknownst to me. If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportuinty to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 16:36:20
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-estrecev? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 16:31:06
> > > > I can't think of any other reasons for us not to respond...
> >
> > Are you saying that you've notified us and nothing's happened? If so, please notify us again. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> Could your reply to me above say in some way that you are wondering if I have used the report feature to notify the administrators of a post?
> I base this on the potential IMO of the grammatical structure of your reply to me in particular with the part that reads,[...are you saying that you have notified us...?].
> Now if you agree that you are in some way wondering if I have sent the notification, then let us look at my post to you that your reply to me follows.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727401.html
> In the post from me above, let us look at part (B).
> That part is my request to you as to if you are saying that you have not received a notification from me in the last 9 days.
> All the other choices are in some way that you confirm the notification.
> My request to you in (B) was if you were saying that you have not received the notification. This is because I did send such a notification using the proper feature and there has been no response to me from the administration. I am unsure as to if you are saying from your reply to me that[(G). you do know of the notification from me but you are asking me to confirm that I sent it to you] or if you mean [(H), that you are saying that you have not seen the notification], or {something else}. The {something else} could be IMO pertaining to the grammatical structure of the second part of your reply to me,[...and nothing has happened...(after I sent it to you)...]. This leads me to think that there is the potential IMO to think that it is understood that I sent the notification, {but that there was no response to me from the administration}. Then there could be some other meaning unbeknownst to me. If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportuinty to respond accordingly.
> Lou Pilder
>
Posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 17:53:52
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-2stand? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 5:46:18
He's saying send the request again.
I know it would be easier for me to find the request if it's right there on the first page of my inbox as opposed to searching for it among all the messages in my email. I would hazard a guess that also would apply to the others.
Let's just keep it simple, eh? Please send it again.
namaste
deputy gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 18:49:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-2stan » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 17:53:52
> He's saying send the request again.
>
> I know it would be easier for me to find the request if it's right there on the first page of my inbox as opposed to searching for it among all the messages in my email. I would hazard a guess that also would apply to the others.
>
> Let's just keep it simple, eh? Please send it again.
>
> namaste
>
> deputy ggDeputy gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...it would be easier for me...right there..searching...keep it simple...].
Are you saying any of the following?
A. You have seen the notification because you remember it, but you will not look for it?
B. You have seen the notification for you remember it, but you want me to resend it because you would have to look for it?
C. You know of the notification because you remember it, but you would need to do a search in your email boxes and that is not simple for you to do?
D. you do not know one way or the other if the notification was sent?
E. the concept of {what is the easiest thing to do} trumps your concern as to if there are two standards here or not?
F. something else.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 18:49:26
Never mind, Lou.
I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 19:44:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
> Never mind, Lou.
>
> I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...never mind...]
If you mean that I am to not consider what you wrote to me here about resending the notification, then I feel sorry that you are retracting your discussing such with me.
You wrote,[...I know your concerns are valid to you...]
Yes, they are deeply valid to me, and I thought that in your post to me that you also were concerned, for you innitiated dialog with me.
I responded with a concern for clarification from you so that there could be less chance of any misunderstandings.
You wrote,[...your hypotheses about the meanings...]
I made no assumption about what your words mean, for I want to have clarificaztion from the author of the words so that I do not make an assumption. I still am unsure as to the requests from me to you here to clarify as to what you mean by what you wrote. If you could clarify those for me, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, but without knowing what you mean I could have a difficult time having dialog with you and would rather clarify before misunderstsndings could happen.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:00:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
> Never mind, Lou.
>
> I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
>
> ggGardenergirl,
You wrote,[...were you to expreess.. as statements...]
If I was to express something as a statement, that would be different from expressiog something as a request for clarification.
Sometimes requests for clarification are to {rule out} something and in this case I was hoping to have some things ruled out in order to open up a clearer path in dialog concerning the deepconcern that I have here as to if there are two standards or not.
I guess that in order to determine that, one of the six deputies or Dr. Hsiung could make it simple for me by declaring that they know of my notification or if they can say that there was no notification from me. As of now, I am unsure if any of the deputies or Dr. Hsiung has declared either one and I thought that your innitiation of dialog with me could lead me to having that clarification that I am concerned about here. I guess that I may not ever receive that clarification from the administration that concerns me here and may have to accept that.
Lou
Posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:00:24
Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
I hope this may help.
Honore
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:56:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » Lou PIlder, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
> Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
>
> 1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
>
> 2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
>
> Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
>
> I hope this may help.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...what difference..what gardenergirl meant...?]
The concern that I have here in this thread is about as to if there are two standards here or not.
The question as to if that can be determined or not could be a simple matter IMO of either DR. Hsiung or a deputy aknowlege that they know that I sent the notification, or if they could say for certian that I did not. Gardenergirl has posted that if one here does not receive a response, then they could post on the administration board something to alert the deputies and gardenergirl writes, [...That would be sufficient,at least for me, to check outstanding requests...].
To be continued...
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:08:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » Lou PIlder, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
> Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
>
> 1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
>
> 2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
>
> Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
>
> I hope this may help.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...you can send your request to Dr. Hsiung...what difference what gardenergirl meant...?].
Let me include some aspects of the background concerning my deep concern here. But first, are you concerned or not about my deep concern as to if there are two standards here or not?
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:42:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-2stan » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 17:53:52
> He's saying send the request again.
>
> I know it would be easier for me to find the request if it's right there on the first page of my inbox as opposed to searching for it among all the messages in my email. I would hazard a guess that also would apply to the others.
>
> Let's just keep it simple, eh? Please send it again.
>
> namaste
>
> deputy gggardenergirl and friends,
Gardenergirl wrote,[...send the requests again...]
But what if the post in question is authored by a member that I have requested about three other posts of that member? You see, then I can not send it via the report feature. And how can one know from the FAQ here as to what, if any, procedure there is for one to find out how many posts of a member you have already sent if this counting goes back to conception of the forum?
But there is much more to 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.