![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 54. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme? » Honore, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:08:32
Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
Honore
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 5:55:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme?, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
> Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
>
> I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
>
> So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
>
> Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
>
> ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
>
> However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
>
> To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
>
> Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
>
> So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
>
> Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
>
> Honore
>
Honore,
You wrote,[...I am >not concerned< about {their} present-day impact of readers on Psychobabble...].
I am unsure as to why you are {not concerned} about any present-day impact of some statements that have not been notated as being uncivil here. Could you elaborate some more about what statements are those that you are not concerned about and why you are {not concerned}? Are you not concerned about, for instance, posts that have statements IMO that historically have been used to foster the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, as to their impact on readers here in relation to them seeing statements of that nature to be allowed to stand without an administrative sanction that they are uncivil? It is my deep conviction that to estinguish any flames of defamation or discrimination that have the potential to be seen toward Jews here, could provide a clearer path to have social justice for all people.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 6:34:01
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,[...never mind, Lou...].
I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here. I understand that the idiom,{never mind}, could mean to {not worry}. If I am not to worry, then could I think that there is clarification to my concerns forthcomming? If that is your intent in your use of the idiom to me, could you verify that?
Another connotation of the idiom {never mind}, is to disregard what someone said. Since you posted what is in question as a deputy, if you are saying that your intent in your use of the idiom is for what you posted to be diregarded, I am unsure if you mean just for me to disregard or if you mean that all members here are to disregard.Could you make another post in the thread where you posted the procedure to follow when one does not receive a response from the administrion in regards to a notification, if you mean that all members are to disregard, that you are asking all members to disregard your deputy administrative procedure?
If there could be something else that you mean by the use of {never mind} here to me, could you clarify this? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 7:15:04
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore--~con? » Honore, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 5:55:11
> > Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
> >
> > I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
> >
> > So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
> >
> > Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
> >
> > ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
> >
> > However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
> >
> > To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
> >
> > So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
> >
> > Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
> >
> > Honore
> >
> Honore,
> You wrote,[...I am >not concerned< about {their} present-day impact of readers on Psychobabble...].
> I am unsure as to why you are {not concerned} about any present-day impact of some statements that have not been notated as being uncivil here. Could you elaborate some more about what statements are those that you are not concerned about and why you are {not concerned}? Are you not concerned about, for instance, posts that have statements IMO that historically have been used to foster the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, as to their impact on readers here in relation to them seeing statements of that nature to be allowed to stand without an administrative sanction that they are uncivil? It is my deep conviction that to estinguish any flames of defamation or discrimination that have the potential to be seen toward Jews here, could provide a clearer path to have social justice for all people.
> Lou
> >
>
> Honore,
You wrote,[...I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend.This is because sometimes Dr. (Hsiung) may overlook a request accidently, or without knowing it...].
I am unsure as to what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is a double standard for you to resend if Dr. Hsiung did not overlook it?
B. It is a double standard even if he did overlook it because you have posted that you sent it according to the procedure that one here is to follow?
C. It is not a double standard to deny you the response if they are not in receipt of your request,but it is a double standard if they are in receipt of your request and are unwilling to respond. But by the nature that the deputy has posted {never mind}, the administration is now taking back their own offer to check for outstanding posts to Lou and thearfore, in your opinion, is a double standard unless they post that the offer to check for outstanding posts is withdrawn to all members here?
D. It is a double standard if the procedure in question to check outstanding requests is not honored to you, Lou, even if the offer to check outstanding requests is withdrawn to all members?
E. something else
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2007, at 15:14:54
In reply to Lou's request for clairification to gg-nvrmnd » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 6:34:01
> > 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
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
Namasté
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 15:51:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clairification to gg-nvrmnd » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2007, at 15:14:54
> > > 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
> >
> > gardenergirl,
> > You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> > I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.
>
> What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
>
> As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
>
> I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
>
> Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
>
> Namasté
>
> gg
>
gardenergir,
You wrote,[...what is your best guess...?{as to what you mean by |never mind,Lou|}...].
I really would not like to prejudge your intent as to what you mean by the use of the idiom here with a guess.
You wrote,[...your ..questions...go beyond the scope..I do not have the energy to..address them..the likelyhood of more questions...].
I am unsure as to what you mean by the above.
If the scope of our dialog is to clarify what you wrote to me, could you clarify why any reply to me from you concerning that, could be beyond the scope of our dialog?
In what you write as not having the energy, are you saying any of the following?
A. The energy required to address the questions here could be answerd by someone else that has more energy?
B. The questions require more energy to answer than most other members have here? If so, could you write how that could be concluded, and if in your opinion, let's say for an example, that another deputy, could or could not answer them?
C. The questions require more energy to answer because they are questions about what is meant by what you wrote?
D. The questions require more energy to answer because they are important questions?
E. something else
To be continued...
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 16:46:34
In reply to Lou's reply gardenergirl-byondscop » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 15:51:40
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > gardenergirl,
> > > You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.
> >
> > What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
> >
> > As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
> >
> > I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
> >
> > Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
> >
> > Namasté
> >
> > gg
> >
> gardenergir,
> You wrote,[...what is your best guess...?{as to what you mean by |never mind,Lou|}...].
> I really would not like to prejudge your intent as to what you mean by the use of the idiom here with a guess.
> You wrote,[...your ..questions...go beyond the scope..I do not have the energy to..address them..the likelyhood of more questions...].
> I am unsure as to what you mean by the above.
> If the scope of our dialog is to clarify what you wrote to me, could you clarify why any reply to me from you concerning that, could be beyond the scope of our dialog?
> In what you write as not having the energy, are you saying any of the following?
> A. The energy required to address the questions here could be answerd by someone else that has more energy?
> B. The questions require more energy to answer than most other members have here? If so, could you write how that could be concluded, and if in your opinion, let's say for an example, that another deputy, could or could not answer them?
> C. The questions require more energy to answer because they are questions about what is meant by what you wrote?
> D. The questions require more energy to answer because they are important questions?
> E. something else
> To be continued...
> Lou
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...suddenly the channel has changed..more complicated..a simple need...problem of {yours}...discrimination..two standards..disengage...].
I am unsure of what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is more helpfull to not clarify what is written here?
B. It would be good for the community as a whole if requests for clarification were not responded to?
C. Resolving the past, which could find solutions for the present, is not helpfull?
D. something else?
Lou
>
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 17:20:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme?, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
> Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
>
> I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
>
> So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
>
> Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
>
> ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
>
> However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
>
> To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
>
> Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
>
> So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
>
> Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
>
> Honore
>
>
Honore,
You wrote,[...do not know.. what your concern is...].
This thread has perhps some concerns of mine that may be unbeknownst to you. This involves administration policy that involves more than what is being discussed here so far.
This thread has the potential to encompass policy involving requests to the adminstration and what is in the FAQ.
One issue here could bring into discussion the policy of reporting a post by a member that is one that 3 reports have been already requested. The post in question here for notification is not one of those members that I have used the report feature three times as of yet for that member, but could bring that policy into this discussion here. I hope as this thread could contimue, that these and other policy concerns by me here could help you better understand what my concerns are.
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 6, 2007, at 19:06:50
In reply to Lou's reply gardenergirl-soluforpres » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 16:46:34
I have not seen Lou on here for a while and am wondering if he ever got the reply he asked for and or if Dr Bob is going to answer him as GG stated she was weary etc.......I understand she does not wish to continue this discussion and I can respect the need for time away...but then...who did the request go to?
Thanks
Posted by kid47 on February 8, 2007, at 22:11:18
In reply to Did Lou ever get a reply? I am worried on Lou too, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 6, 2007, at 19:06:50
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:08:52
In reply to LOU You around? (nm), posted by kid47 on February 8, 2007, at 22:11:18
Kid47,
You wrote,[...You around?(Lou)..].
There are some requests from me to Dr. Hsiung in this thread that I could be better able to post here in this thread with a reply from him to me.
The requests are of the nature of my concern as to if he is or is not confirming or not that a request from me to the administration using the notification feature to report a post has or has not been received by the administration. I am unsure as to if the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's replies to me in this thread say that he has or has not received my notification that I sent that is in question.
Another aspect of this thread is that I am concerned as to if there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature to report a post. I am unsure of what the grammatical structure of the replies to me by the deputy here mean. This is in relation to a member posting on the administrative board that a notification has not either been addressed in the thread that it is in, or that the requestor has had an email from the administration concerning their opinion. The deputy has posted something like that posting on the administrative board is {sufficient} for the deputy to check outstanding notifications.
Have you read all of the posts in this thread? If so, could you offer any opinion here?
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.