![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 7, 2007, at 17:50:56
If there is a statement posted that could lead one to feel accused or put down, and a deputy or you writes to that person to please be civil, and then another person writes a statement that could also lead one to feel accused or put down ,and you or a deputy writes to please rephrase that, then there are two standards, which is discrimination or favoritism. This could or could not be due to friendships. So that is why a few of us wonder what the differentiating aspect is? This has been a topic in chat..This would be helpful to many as thus one would not feel or believe that there is favoritism or discrimination due to the fact this would be clear and posted in the FAQ. Unless there is favoritism and then one could not be able show us a standard. Thanks ahead.
Posted by justyourlaugh on February 7, 2007, at 22:42:51
In reply to For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 7, 2007, at 17:50:56
this site has become a much smaller town...
there needs to be a disclaimer that this site is a "back patting area"...which is good..but it must be said there is "no room for free speech or thought"..toss your own beliefs aside..the admin. will let you know if you and your thoughts are valid.....
Posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
In reply to For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 7, 2007, at 17:50:56
You know, I can and have explained the rationale for my deputorial thought processes many times over the years. Unfortunately, I don't always find that I possess the ability to answer in a way that is helpful, but I'll give it another shot.
I rarely use the Please Rephrase, and when I do it's because someone's new or someone is obviously struggling to stay within the civility guidelines and has missed the mark a bit. It has nothing to do with favoritism. It is because I consider that in this circumstance, the Please Rephrase is more appropriate.
IMHO, it actually is a more taxing "Please" than "Please be civil." It often requires a lot of back and forthing to get at what Dr. Bob is asking for, and it often requires someone compromising what a poster wishes to say in a way they'd rather not do.
I guess I understand PBC's from both angles. As a poster, I'm terrified of getting one myself, and would see them as punitive. As a deputy, I don't usually see them as punitive at all. I see them more as reminders that a thread has gotten heated and people need to step back a bit or as education as to what's allowable under the site civility rules if that's applicable in any given situation.
Perhaps this isn't a helpful explanation, but I tried.
Dinah, acting as both deputy and as poster
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 8, 2007, at 15:04:43
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
> You know, I can and have explained the rationale for my deputorial thought processes many times over the years. Unfortunately, I don't always find that I possess the ability to answer in a way that is helpful, but I'll give it another shot.
>
> I rarely use the Please Rephrase, and when I do it's because someone's new or someone is obviously struggling to stay within the civility guidelines and has missed the mark a bit. It has nothing to do with favoritism. It is because I consider that in this circumstance, the Please Rephrase is more appropriate.
>
> IMHO, it actually is a more taxing "Please" than "Please be civil." It often requires a lot of back and forthing to get at what Dr. Bob is asking for, and it often requires someone compromising what a poster wishes to say in a way they'd rather not do.
>
> I guess I understand PBC's from both angles. As a poster, I'm terrified of getting one myself, and would see them as punitive. As a deputy, I don't usually see them as punitive at all. I see them more as reminders that a thread has gotten heated and people need to step back a bit or as education as to what's allowable under the site civility rules if that's applicable in any given situation.
>
> Perhaps this isn't a helpful explanation, but I tried.
>
> Dinah, acting as both deputy and as posterFriends,
It is written here,[...the rationale for my deputy thought processes...when I (use the please rephrase)its because someone is new or (a struggling poster)...has missed the mark {a bit}...perhaps this isn't a helpfull explanation...].
The poster that innitiated this discussion asked for {Dr. Hsiung} to clarify what the differentiating aspect is that could be used in a case cited when there are two statements that could lead one to feel put down and one was told to please rephrase and the other to please be civil.The grammatical structure of the above identifies two rationales that the deputy uses to use {please rephrase}.
A.the poster is new
B.a struggling poster has missed the mark {a bit}.
In looking at (A), a new poster, the rational takes into the consideration as to if the >poster< is new. If this is the case, could not there be a statement from the administration something like:
1.>>please rephrase what is *uncivil*<< such as XXX?
2.>>Since you are a new member, *uncivil* statements are allowed to be rephrased, so please rephrase the *uncivil* statement XXX.
If this could be implemented here, could it not be also put in the TOS here in the FAQ? If so, it would let the forum know that the statement in question, if it is uncivil, is still notated as being uncivil, but it is not being accounted to the poster in the same as it would to a non-new poster, if the please rephrases have a different accountability to the member. Does this not then also bring up the question as to what differentiates a new member from a non-new mwmber? If so, could that be defined in the TOS also?
But what if there are statements here that could be deemed to be uncivil and posted to by the administration to that menber to {please rephrase} and was posted by a member that has been here for years?
Now let us go on and look at the grammatical structure of (B), [...a struggling poster has missed the mark {a bit}...] in relation to the post of the member that innnitiated this discussion relevant to [...two standards...favoritism or discrimination...]
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on February 8, 2007, at 16:01:23
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
...remember also the mission of this site, support and education, and the golden rule.
http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
THE ONENESS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
Compiled by the Temple of Understanding, a global interfaith organization
Baha'i: "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before
himself." -- Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." -- Udana-Varga, 5:18Christianity: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do
to you, do ye even so to them." -- Jesus, in Matthew 7:12Confucianism: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do
unto you." -- Analects 15:23Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which
would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his
brother that which he desires for himself." -- SunnahJainism: "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should
regard all creatures as we regard our own self."
-- Lord Mahavira, 24th TirthankaraJudaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That
is the law: all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31aNative American: "Respect for all life is the foundation."
-- The Great Law of PeaceSikhism: "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within
everyone." -- Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth SahibZoroastrianism: "That nature only is good when it shall not do
unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
-- Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5Compiled by the Temple of Understanding, a global interfaith organization
http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr233
I believe the mission of Babble as quoted above from the FAQ calls for the golden rule to be the standard of civility. Enforcement carried out in a civil manner by following the same rules will allow all to feel equally welcome.
Zazenduckie
Administration Board Welcomer
Posted by zazenduckie on February 8, 2007, at 16:08:36
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
>
> I guess I understand PBC's from both angles. As a poster, I'm terrified of getting one myself, and would see them as punitive. As a deputy, I don't usually see them as punitive at all.Thanks for your honesty.
Posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 16:16:42
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 10:41:31
I think I'll try to be more like Dr. Bob.
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 8, 2007, at 16:36:23
In reply to Remembering the mission, posted by zazenduckie on February 8, 2007, at 16:01:23
> ...remember also the mission of this site, support and education, and the golden rule.
>
> http://dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> THE ONENESS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
>
> Compiled by the Temple of Understanding, a global interfaith organization
>
> Baha'i: "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before
> himself." -- Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71
>
> Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
> hurtful." -- Udana-Varga, 5:18
>
> Christianity: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do
> to you, do ye even so to them." -- Jesus, in Matthew 7:12
>
> Confucianism: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do
> unto you." -- Analects 15:23
>
> Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which
> would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517
>
> Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his
> brother that which he desires for himself." -- Sunnah
>
> Jainism: "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should
> regard all creatures as we regard our own self."
> -- Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
>
> Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That
> is the law: all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a
>
> Native American: "Respect for all life is the foundation."
> -- The Great Law of Peace
>
> Sikhism: "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within
> everyone." -- Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib
>
> Zoroastrianism: "That nature only is good when it shall not do
> unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
> -- Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5
>
> Compiled by the Temple of Understanding, a global interfaith organization
>
> http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr233
>
> I believe the mission of Babble as quoted above from the FAQ calls for the golden rule to be the standard of civility. Enforcement carried out in a civil manner by following the same rules will allow all to feel equally welcome.
>
> Zazenduckie
> Administration Board WelcomerFriends,
It is written here,[...a civil manner by following the same rules will allow all to feel equally welcome...]
Shalom aleichem,
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on February 8, 2007, at 19:18:44
In reply to For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 7, 2007, at 17:50:56
I know I wasn't asked this question, but if I were, I would mention that I take into consideration whether a statement is easily rephrase-able. If it's a small part of an otherwise civil post, and that part can be modified to make it civil without adversely affecting the general message imo, I would be more inclined to use a Please Rephrase.
namasté
gg
Posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 23:06:28
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues, posted by gardenergirl on February 8, 2007, at 19:18:44
Yes, I think that was part of what I was trying to say, only you said it better.
This dratted brain is letting me down way too much lately.
Posted by Honore on February 9, 2007, at 0:07:44
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on February 8, 2007, at 23:06:28
Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
Honore
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 7:47:22
In reply to Re: For ..Dr Bob please clarify...pbc issues, posted by Honore on February 9, 2007, at 0:07:44
> Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
>
> Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
>
> In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
>
> I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
>
> No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
>
> HonoreFriends,
It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
Friends,
What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 9, 2007, at 14:29:52
In reply to Lou's response to aspects ofHonore's post-cantbe?, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 7:47:22
Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
Thanks ahead
> > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> >
> > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> >
> > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> >
> > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> >
> > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> >
> > Honore
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
>
> Friends,
> What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> Lou
>
Posted by zenhussy on February 9, 2007, at 14:44:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response /DR BOB/ pls keep on topic, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 9, 2007, at 14:29:52
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:47:46
In reply to Re: Lou's response /DR BOB/ pls keep on topic, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 9, 2007, at 14:29:52
> Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
>
> It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
>
> Thanks ahead
>
>
> > > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> > >
> > > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> > >
> > > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> > >
> > > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> > >
> > > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> > >
> > > Honore
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
> >
> > Friends,
> > What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> > It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> > So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> > Lou
> >
> F4MT,
You wrote,[...Thank you Lou for understanding...]
>>Lou's seventeenth smiley>[:-)
Lou
>
Posted by gabbi-2 on February 10, 2007, at 16:58:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response /DR BOB/ pls keep on topic, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 9, 2007, at 14:29:52
I shall block myself for a week.
It's not that big a deal to me.
I think I do see why that was done, however it's too tiresome to get into.I doubt it has any thing to do with favouritism or friendships, as has been implied, I've been blocked for many weeks, many times.
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 7:52:17
In reply to Lou's reply to F4MT-htrdquen » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:47:46
> > Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
> >
> > It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
> >
> > Thanks ahead
> >
> >
> > > > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> > > >
> > > > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> > > >
> > > > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> > > >
> > > > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> > > >
> > > > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> > > >
> > > > Honore
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> > > It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> > > So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> > > Lou
> > >
> > F4MT,
> You wrote,[...Thank you Lou for understanding...]
> >>Lou's seventeenth smiley>[:-)
> Lou
> >
>
> Friends,
This thread was innitiated in regards to a member wanting to know from DR. Hsiung his differentiating aspect that there is for him to use {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil} in posts that have statements that could lead another to feel put down. The concern of the member is as to favoritism or two standards or discrimination.
I do not know all about the posts in question that are in question, for those posts are not given in this thread for me to see the entire matter involved in the concern of innitiator of this thread. I think that if we examine the historical use of how favoritism has been used, then I think that there could be a better understanding as to what the innitiator of this thread is concerned about, for {favoritism} could have more than one interpretation and use. One form of historical favoritism is when a particular person or group of people are allowed to go unsanctioned for ,let's say, breaking a law that what another person or group would be arrested and chrged with. This form of favoritism, which could be deemed to be discrimination or the concept of two standards, then, concerns an irrational favor allowing the person or group to go without being charged with a crime when others in that city or country etc are charged with a crime for doing the same.
Another form of historical favoritism is concerning when a particular crime is commited, the crime itself is allowed to be commited by any person. In this situation, the crime committed is ignored and is what allowed to be committed regarless as to if the poster a member of a favored group or not.
This could happen, and has happened historically, when a preconceived judgment or bias or prejudice against an individual or group is wanting to be esatblished by the >state<. In this situation, the {state} wants to build a {structure} and encourages and fosters an irrational hostility directed against an individual or group . And one way this hostility has been fostered historically has been to allow and promote a preconceived judgment or prjudice to be fostered, in a city or country etc (the state), by not sanctioning the ones that are helping the {state} to promote the hostility directed against a race or individulal.
In a sense, in that case, the favoritism or discrimination by the nature of two standards, becomes >state-sponsored< and the irratinal hostility toward the group or one member of the group is fostered to the point that it becomes fashionable to help the state build the structure.Once the structure is established, then the dismantleing could be a very difficult task to achieve.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 9:06:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-histfav, posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 7:52:17
> > > Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
> > >
> > > It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
> > >
> > > Thanks ahead
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> > > > >
> > > > > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> > > > >
> > > > > Honore
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> > > > It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> > > > So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > F4MT,
> > You wrote,[...Thank you Lou for understanding...]
> > >>Lou's seventeenth smiley>[:-)
> > Lou
> > >
> >
> > Friends,
> This thread was innitiated in regards to a member wanting to know from DR. Hsiung his differentiating aspect that there is for him to use {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil} in posts that have statements that could lead another to feel put down. The concern of the member is as to favoritism or two standards or discrimination.
> I do not know all about the posts in question that are in question, for those posts are not given in this thread for me to see the entire matter involved in the concern of innitiator of this thread. I think that if we examine the historical use of how favoritism has been used, then I think that there could be a better understanding as to what the innitiator of this thread is concerned about, for {favoritism} could have more than one interpretation and use. One form of historical favoritism is when a particular person or group of people are allowed to go unsanctioned for ,let's say, breaking a law that what another person or group would be arrested and chrged with. This form of favoritism, which could be deemed to be discrimination or the concept of two standards, then, concerns an irrational favor allowing the person or group to go without being charged with a crime when others in that city or country etc are charged with a crime for doing the same.
> Another form of historical favoritism is concerning when a particular crime is commited, the crime itself is allowed to be commited by any person. In this situation, the crime committed is ignored and is what allowed to be committed regarless as to if the poster a member of a favored group or not.
> This could happen, and has happened historically, when a preconceived judgment or bias or prejudice against an individual or group is wanting to be esatblished by the >state<. In this situation, the {state} wants to build a {structure} and encourages and fosters an irrational hostility directed against an individual or group . And one way this hostility has been fostered historically has been to allow and promote a preconceived judgment or prjudice to be fostered, in a city or country etc (the state), by not sanctioning the ones that are helping the {state} to promote the hostility directed against a race or individulal.
> In a sense, in that case, the favoritism or discrimination by the nature of two standards, becomes >state-sponsored< and the irratinal hostility toward the group or one member of the group is fostered to the point that it becomes fashionable to help the state build the structure.Once the structure is established, then the dismantleing could be a very difficult task to achieve.
> Lou
>
Friends,
Many of you may know that I have been a long-time advocate here in my efforts to promote equality and justice. Many of you may not know that it is my intent to offer support and education here {from my perspective}. I have wanted to post here what I believe has the potential to {bridge the differences} that separate people of various conflicting perspectives. This bridge is one that I have been trying to construct. It is a bridge that I think could lead to a place that could be where one could {overcome} the place that the bridge allowed them to passover from.
There is a Gate that is on the entrance to the bridge that I am talking about. The opening of that Gate IMO is jepardized when things stand in the way to the Gate. Fallen4MyT has innitiated this thread and I believe that there is great merit in his/her concern here about there possibly being two standards or favoristism or discrimination in relation to the administrative use of {please rephrase} and {please be civil}. I believe that a community depends heavily on whether if there is favoritism, if it is allowed to be fostered or not.
You see, when favoritism, or discrimination or two standards, becomes commonplace in a community, it IMO has the potential to send a chilling message that what is being favored,is OK. This is one reason that I appreciate this thread being innitiated here for there is concern by the innitiator that there could be favoritism being allowed and it is being brought to attention so that if there is favoritism, that the structure of favoristim could be examined and allow members to make their own determination as to if there is or is not favoritism and if they then would want to contribute or not, if there is favoritism, to it being more strongly built upon or not. The innitiator would like for Dr. Hsiung to post his differntiating aspect that he uses to post to a member to {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil}. This is IMO very important for one receives a sanction and the other could not receive a sanction if they restate what is in question, I guess, to elimiate what could be uncivil in the writing of a new statement to replace the statement in question, although there may be a different interpretation of this concept and that is why I think that the innitiator of this thread has brought this up here.
I will continue to oppose any aspect of two standards or favoritism or discrimination because I think that it is self-destructive and could lead those that are discriminated upon by the nature of two standards to feel put down. But for there to be justice and equality IMO for me, I would like justice and equality for all.
I do not think that discrimination could be justified in a mental-health community any more than I could think that favoritism could be justified in any community. And I believe that because this is a mental-health community, that favoritism IMO is like a match that could have the potential to start a fire. And could not one match start a forest fire? It is my deep conviction that a match is a match regardless of how it is lighted. For the flames that are to be estinguished are flames regardless as to their origin and could IMO have the potential, unless they are estinguished, to keep on burning.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 18:28:15
In reply to Re: deeply appreciate your efforts....thank you (nm) » Fallen4MyT, posted by zenhussy on February 9, 2007, at 14:44:11
Friends,
It is written here,[...deeply appreciate your eforts..Fallen4MyT...]
I also am deeply appreciative of F4's attempt to bring up to the forum the aspect of favoritism which could be discrimination or what is also known as {two standards}.
You see, this being a mental health community has IMO for it to have a greater responsibility to reinforce that the forum's administration have incorporated into it a diligence to administer without distinction of any kind as to what is civil or not civil.
The effect of being discriminated upon, in particular to one that is participating in a mental health community, has IMO greater consequences not only to the one that is unfavored, but to the one favored also..
I base this on seeing and experiancing the lash of discrimination and the humiliation that goes with that. I have seen those that use discrimination also have the same effects.
Last year a man called me on the phone and said that he could not function in his life. He told me that he was a witness and thearfore a party to me being beaten and discriminated upon and called ethnic epithets, but did not speak up about it and asked me why I did not do anything about it. He said that he was afraid that he would lose his job if he did not go along with it.
For 30 years he had held this inside of him and he said to me that he could no longer endure it. I told him that one can overcome humiliation and debasement.
He said that he was a believer in a popular religion. He asked me what he could do for me and for himself. I told him that the founder of his religion , in his last words said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:50:10
In reply to Lou's response to aspects ofthis thread-stlbrning?, posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 9:06:44
Lou, I read your last 2 or 3 posts and I am in awe at how brillant you really are. I wish I could write and speak as eloquently. I believe we are on the same page on this issue and I just wish to understand and perhaps help in any way (if needed) so that we are all treated and *feel* that we are all as equal as we really are. If there are two standards I do not see how that can be possible. I am just trying to understand and am not against anyone..in fact I am for ALL. I am very sick right now and may have to have surgery so I cannot devote as much time as I wish to on this topic right now.....but I am trying best I can and do hope DR BOB replies and we can bridge the please rephrase and pbc if needed
> Friends,
> Many of you may know that I have been a long-time advocate here in my efforts to promote equality and justice. Many of you may not know that it is my intent to offer support and education here {from my perspective}. I have wanted to post here what I believe has the potential to {bridge the differences} that separate people of various conflicting perspectives. This bridge is one that I have been trying to construct. It is a bridge that I think could lead to a place that could be where one could {overcome} the place that the bridge allowed them to passover from.
> There is a Gate that is on the entrance to the bridge that I am talking about. The opening of that Gate IMO is jepardized when things stand in the way to the Gate. Fallen4MyT has innitiated this thread and I believe that there is great merit in his/her concern here about there possibly being two standards or favoristism or discrimination in relation to the administrative use of {please rephrase} and {please be civil}. I believe that a community depends heavily on whether if there is favoritism, if it is allowed to be fostered or not.
> You see, when favoritism, or discrimination or two standards, becomes commonplace in a community, it IMO has the potential to send a chilling message that what is being favored,is OK. This is one reason that I appreciate this thread being innitiated here for there is concern by the innitiator that there could be favoritism being allowed and it is being brought to attention so that if there is favoritism, that the structure of favoristim could be examined and allow members to make their own determination as to if there is or is not favoritism and if they then would want to contribute or not, if there is favoritism, to it being more strongly built upon or not. The innitiator would like for Dr. Hsiung to post his differntiating aspect that he uses to post to a member to {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil}. This is IMO very important for one receives a sanction and the other could not receive a sanction if they restate what is in question, I guess, to elimiate what could be uncivil in the writing of a new statement to replace the statement in question, although there may be a different interpretation of this concept and that is why I think that the innitiator of this thread has brought this up here.
> I will continue to oppose any aspect of two standards or favoritism or discrimination because I think that it is self-destructive and could lead those that are discriminated upon by the nature of two standards to feel put down. But for there to be justice and equality IMO for me, I would like justice and equality for all.
> I do not think that discrimination could be justified in a mental-health community any more than I could think that favoritism could be justified in any community. And I believe that because this is a mental-health community, that favoritism IMO is like a match that could have the potential to start a fire. And could not one match start a forest fire? It is my deep conviction that a match is a match regardless of how it is lighted. For the flames that are to be estinguished are flames regardless as to their origin and could IMO have the potential, unless they are estinguished, to keep on burning.
> Lou
>
> >
>
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:51:58
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of ZH's post-, posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 18:28:15
You understand :)
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...deeply appreciate your eforts..Fallen4MyT...]
> I also am deeply appreciative of F4's attempt to bring up to the forum the aspect of favoritism which could be discrimination or what is also known as {two standards}.
> You see, this being a mental health community has IMO for it to have a greater responsibility to reinforce that the forum's administration have incorporated into it a diligence to administer without distinction of any kind as to what is civil or not civil.
> The effect of being discriminated upon, in particular to one that is participating in a mental health community, has IMO greater consequences not only to the one that is unfavored, but to the one favored also..
> I base this on seeing and experiancing the lash of discrimination and the humiliation that goes with that. I have seen those that use discrimination also have the same effects.
> Last year a man called me on the phone and said that he could not function in his life. He told me that he was a witness and thearfore a party to me being beaten and discriminated upon and called ethnic epithets, but did not speak up about it and asked me why I did not do anything about it. He said that he was afraid that he would lose his job if he did not go along with it.
> For 30 years he had held this inside of him and he said to me that he could no longer endure it. I told him that one can overcome humiliation and debasement.
> He said that he was a believer in a popular religion. He asked me what he could do for me and for himself. I told him that the founder of his religion , in his last words said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"
> Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 12, 2007, at 23:02:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects ofthis thread-stlbrning? » Lou PIlder, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:50:10
> Lou, I read your last 2 or 3 posts and I am in awe at how brillant you really are. I wish I could write and speak as eloquently. I believe we are on the same page on this issue and I just wish to understand and perhaps help in any way (if needed) so that we are all treated and *feel* that we are all as equal as we really are. If there are two standards I do not see how that can be possible. I am just trying to understand and am not against anyone..in fact I am for ALL. I am very sick right now and may have to have surgery so I cannot devote as much time as I wish to on this topic right now.....but I am trying best I can and do hope DR BOB replies and we can bridge the please rephrase and pbc if needed
>
>
>
> > Friends,
> > Many of you may know that I have been a long-time advocate here in my efforts to promote equality and justice. Many of you may not know that it is my intent to offer support and education here {from my perspective}. I have wanted to post here what I believe has the potential to {bridge the differences} that separate people of various conflicting perspectives. This bridge is one that I have been trying to construct. It is a bridge that I think could lead to a place that could be where one could {overcome} the place that the bridge allowed them to passover from.
> > There is a Gate that is on the entrance to the bridge that I am talking about. The opening of that Gate IMO is jepardized when things stand in the way to the Gate. Fallen4MyT has innitiated this thread and I believe that there is great merit in his/her concern here about there possibly being two standards or favoristism or discrimination in relation to the administrative use of {please rephrase} and {please be civil}. I believe that a community depends heavily on whether if there is favoritism, if it is allowed to be fostered or not.
> > You see, when favoritism, or discrimination or two standards, becomes commonplace in a community, it IMO has the potential to send a chilling message that what is being favored,is OK. This is one reason that I appreciate this thread being innitiated here for there is concern by the innitiator that there could be favoritism being allowed and it is being brought to attention so that if there is favoritism, that the structure of favoristim could be examined and allow members to make their own determination as to if there is or is not favoritism and if they then would want to contribute or not, if there is favoritism, to it being more strongly built upon or not. The innitiator would like for Dr. Hsiung to post his differntiating aspect that he uses to post to a member to {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil}. This is IMO very important for one receives a sanction and the other could not receive a sanction if they restate what is in question, I guess, to elimiate what could be uncivil in the writing of a new statement to replace the statement in question, although there may be a different interpretation of this concept and that is why I think that the innitiator of this thread has brought this up here.
> > I will continue to oppose any aspect of two standards or favoritism or discrimination because I think that it is self-destructive and could lead those that are discriminated upon by the nature of two standards to feel put down. But for there to be justice and equality IMO for me, I would like justice and equality for all.
> > I do not think that discrimination could be justified in a mental-health community any more than I could think that favoritism could be justified in any community. And I believe that because this is a mental-health community, that favoritism IMO is like a match that could have the potential to start a fire. And could not one match start a forest fire? It is my deep conviction that a match is a match regardless of how it is lighted. For the flames that are to be estinguished are flames regardless as to their origin and could IMO have the potential, unless they are estinguished, to keep on burning.
> > Lou
> >
> > F4,
You wrote,[...I don't see how that can be possible...]
I think that if you can dream it, you can do it. And I have a pocket full of dreams.
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.