![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 54. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:30:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-bechbys » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:08:52
> 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
>
Kid47,
If you are considering responding to the aspects of this thread, the following post by me here could offer what my concerns are about here in this thread.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/728181.html
Posted by kid47 on February 9, 2007, at 10:54:34
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-2standnotif? » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:30:23
Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
Peace my friend
kid
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:03:15
In reply to Lou, posted by kid47 on February 9, 2007, at 10:54:34
> Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
>
> Peace my friend
>
> kidKid47,
In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:43:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-bengptdn? » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:03:15
> > Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
> >
> > Peace my friend
> >
> > kid
>
> Kid47,
> In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
> I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
> A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
> B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
> C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
> D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
> E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
> I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
> There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
> There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
> If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
> Lou
>
Kid47,
There are many more aspects involved in this concern of mine here besides receiving a response from the administration concerning what the notification was about.
You see, the notification that I sent was about another policy here that I was asking from the administration to tell me what could be any differentiating aspects that could allow one and not another in relation to that policy that I will not specify here. I will by email, though.
This policy, if my notification was responded to, could have in my opinion, other aspects of this forum to be brought out.
This could involve all the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum and the please do not post to me rule, and the 3 noification rule, although the poster that authored the post in question is not one that I have sent 3 other notifications.
Perhaps this could be made clearer by email since I am unsure as to if those new rules could allow some things that I would like for you to know to be posted here.
The offer to email is open to anyone.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:56:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-mnymoraspecs, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:43:26
Did all of you not get his report? Could you let us (Posters) know? Thank you ahead.
> > > Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
> > >
> > > Peace my friend
> > >
> > > kid
> >
> > Kid47,
> > In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
> > I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
> > A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
> > B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
> > C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
> > D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
> > E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
> > I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
> > There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
> > There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
> > If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
> > Lou
> >
> Kid47,
> There are many more aspects involved in this concern of mine here besides receiving a response from the administration concerning what the notification was about.
> You see, the notification that I sent was about another policy here that I was asking from the administration to tell me what could be any differentiating aspects that could allow one and not another in relation to that policy that I will not specify here. I will by email, though.
> This policy, if my notification was responded to, could have in my opinion, other aspects of this forum to be brought out.
> This could involve all the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum and the please do not post to me rule, and the 3 noification rule, although the poster that authored the post in question is not one that I have sent 3 other notifications.
> Perhaps this could be made clearer by email since I am unsure as to if those new rules could allow some things that I would like for you to know to be posted here.
> The offer to email is open to anyone.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
>
Posted by kid47 on February 12, 2007, at 11:54:38
In reply to All deputies and Dr Bob?, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:56:00
Granted I have not followed this thread closely, but it would appear to me that Lou is merely asking to be apprised of the status of a notification he sent you. Are there circumstances that makes this a difficult request to address either on this forum or to Lou personally? Could you please respond so maybe Lou and others can move on from this.
Thanks
Peace
kid
Posted by notfred on February 13, 2007, at 22:51:02
In reply to Bob and deputies re: Lou's request, posted by kid47 on February 12, 2007, at 11:54:38
Dr Bob asked Lou to resend it.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727965.html
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 13, 2007, at 23:47:33
In reply to Re: Bob and deputies re: Lou's request, posted by notfred on February 13, 2007, at 22:51:02
> Dr Bob asked Lou to resend it.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727965.htmlFriends,
It is written here,[...resend it...]
I have sent the notification to Dr. Hsiung and, I guess, it also goes to all the 6 deputies. There was a reminder.
The policy here is that the administration will either email the requestor or post in the thread in question.
I have not received either an email from Dr. Hsiung that explaines the administration's position as to why no action is being taken, nor has ther been a post in the thread in question from the administration.
The deputy posts that if one posts on the administrative board that their notification has not been responded to, that that is {sufficient} to check for outstanding requests. I have posted such.
And another member posted for a notification and posted {thanks}. That could be affirming that the notification was checked for. That poster was not told to send it again.
If Dr. Hsiung wants me to send it again, I have asked for him for clarification and I am awaiting a reply from him before I send it again.
For if he has the notification that I sent to him, then why is there this condition to me to send it again when there was not the condition to the other member? If there is some exception, I would like that exception to be posted in this thread by DR. Hsiung and not a deputy.
I think that there is the potential, untill I receive the clarification from Dr. Hsiung that I have requested, for there to be the potential to think IMO that there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature here and I feel put down when I think that there is an additional condition to me than others to use the features offered to all the members here.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 0:02:13
In reply to Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-2stand, posted by Lou PIlder on February 13, 2007, at 23:47:33
If you email it to Dr. Bob, no deputy ever sees it.
If you use the notification button, deputies should receive it.
I haven't seen anything, so I assume you're emailing Dr. Bob directly.
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 5:13:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-2st » Lou PIlder, posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 0:02:13
> If you email it to Dr. Bob, no deputy ever sees it.
>
> If you use the notification button, deputies should receive it.
>
> I haven't seen anything, so I assume you're emailing Dr. Bob directly.Dinah and friends,
It is written here,[...if you use the notification button, deputies should receive it..I assume you are emailing...].
I used the notification button, not email,in the proper manner.
If the notification goes to all the deputies, then could you discuss this with the other deputies and see if some of the other 5 deputies are confirming or not confirming that they have or have not received the notification that I sent that is in question here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 8:16:43
In reply to Lou's response to aspectsof Dinah's post-2st- » Dinah, posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 5:13:26
Perhaps there's something wrong with the system so I'm not receiving notifications.
Dinah
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 17:38:25
In reply to Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-2stand, posted by Lou PIlder on February 13, 2007, at 23:47:33
> > Dr Bob asked Lou to resend it.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727965.html
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...resend it...]
> I have sent the notification to Dr. Hsiung and, I guess, it also goes to all the 6 deputies. There was a reminder.
> The policy here is that the administration will either email the requestor or post in the thread in question.
> I have not received either an email from Dr. Hsiung that explaines the administration's position as to why no action is being taken, nor has ther been a post in the thread in question from the administration.
> The deputy posts that if one posts on the administrative board that their notification has not been responded to, that that is {sufficient} to check for outstanding requests. I have posted such.
> And another member posted for a notification and posted {thanks}. That could be affirming that the notification was checked for. That poster was not told to send it again.
> If Dr. Hsiung wants me to send it again, I have asked for him for clarification and I am awaiting a reply from him before I send it again.
> For if he has the notification that I sent to him, then why is there this condition to me to send it again when there was not the condition to the other member? If there is some exception, I would like that exception to be posted in this thread by DR. Hsiung and not a deputy.
> I think that there is the potential, untill I receive the clarification from Dr. Hsiung that I have requested, for there to be the potential to think IMO that there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature here and I feel put down when I think that there is an additional condition to me than others to use the features offered to all the members here.
> LouFriends,
There are wounds that can be deeply inflicted upon another human being by another human being. These wounds can be to the soul of a human. To feel put down could also have the feeling of being inferior.
When one human being imposes a condition on another human being while allowing others to not have that condition imposed upon them, then the one discriminated upon could feel {inferior}. And the fostering of any feelings of inferiority is IMO an unsound mental-health practice.
I believe that the imposing of an additional standard can have the potential to take away the dignity of a human being. I believe that the imposing of an aditional standard can have the potential to inflict a wound so deep that a person could lose their self-respect.
I believe that there is a promise here on this forum to not allow what could put one down and a promise here that any fire of uncivilness will be put out immediatly, for one match can start a forest fire.
What good could there be to one that is allowed at the lunch counter, but are told that the estblishment has the right to refuse service? In the name of humanity, I ask you to consider my concern here which is am I being subjected to another condition to have my notification responded to as others have their notifications responded to.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 18:39:49
In reply to Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-B, posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 17:38:25
> > > Dr Bob asked Lou to resend it.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/727965.html
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...resend it...]
> > I have sent the notification to Dr. Hsiung and, I guess, it also goes to all the 6 deputies. There was a reminder.
> > The policy here is that the administration will either email the requestor or post in the thread in question.
> > I have not received either an email from Dr. Hsiung that explaines the administration's position as to why no action is being taken, nor has ther been a post in the thread in question from the administration.
> > The deputy posts that if one posts on the administrative board that their notification has not been responded to, that that is {sufficient} to check for outstanding requests. I have posted such.
> > And another member posted for a notification and posted {thanks}. That could be affirming that the notification was checked for. That poster was not told to send it again.
> > If Dr. Hsiung wants me to send it again, I have asked for him for clarification and I am awaiting a reply from him before I send it again.
> > For if he has the notification that I sent to him, then why is there this condition to me to send it again when there was not the condition to the other member? If there is some exception, I would like that exception to be posted in this thread by DR. Hsiung and not a deputy.
> > I think that there is the potential, untill I receive the clarification from Dr. Hsiung that I have requested, for there to be the potential to think IMO that there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature here and I feel put down when I think that there is an additional condition to me than others to use the features offered to all the members here.
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> There are wounds that can be deeply inflicted upon another human being by another human being. These wounds can be to the soul of a human. To feel put down could also have the feeling of being inferior.
> When one human being imposes a condition on another human being while allowing others to not have that condition imposed upon them, then the one discriminated upon could feel {inferior}. And the fostering of any feelings of inferiority is IMO an unsound mental-health practice.
> I believe that the imposing of an additional standard can have the potential to take away the dignity of a human being. I believe that the imposing of an aditional standard can have the potential to inflict a wound so deep that a person could lose their self-respect.
> I believe that there is a promise here on this forum to not allow what could put one down and a promise here that any fire of uncivilness will be put out immediatly, for one match can start a forest fire.
> What good could there be to one that is allowed at the lunch counter, but are told that the estblishment has the right to refuse service? In the name of humanity, I ask you to consider my concern here which is am I being subjected to another condition to have my notification responded to as others have their notifications responded to.
> LouFriends,
Let us look at the following post that is in this thread and then click on the offered link of another post in this thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/728184.html
Looking at the post from the offered link, there is part (B) and then looking back at the first offered link in this post here , it reads,[...This is because I did send such a notification using the proper feature and there has been no response to me from the administration...].
Friends, if you are wondering, I have sent the notification. And if it goes to all six of the deputies, then they could also be in receipt of the notification.
I have been asking that Dr. Hsiung confirm or not confirm that he has received the notification in question from me and I am unsure as to if his reply to me here means he is saying if he has or has not received it.But if he is saying that he has not, could not (B) that says,[...We have not received...]been reiterated to me? If not, in your opinions, why not?
Now one deputy has posted that she did not receive the notification in question. I have asked her to ask the other deputies if they have not received it or if they have received it. I am awaiting the reply from Dinah and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 19:58:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-C, posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 18:39:49
I won't know for sure until Dr. Bob checks it out, but it appears that there's a problem on my end, with my email address.
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 20:35:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspectsof notfred's post-C » Lou PIlder, posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 19:58:32
> I won't know for sure until Dr. Bob checks it out, but it appears that there's a problem on my end, with my email address.
Dinah,
In regards to you writing that you will contact the other deputies to see if they have received my notification, in what you wrote [...it appears that there is a problem on my end...], are you saying any of the following?
A. I have contacted the other deputies and they have received your notification in question, so it might be a problem with my email address.
B. I have contacted some deputies and at least one of them has said that they received your notification in question.
C. I have contacted all the other deputies and they say that they all have not received your notification in question
D. I have contacted the other deputies and they do not know if they have or have not received your notification in question
E. I have contacted the other deputies and they have said that they received more than one notification of the notification of yours in question.
F. I have not contacted the other deputies.
G. something else.
If you could clarify this for me, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 20:56:50
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-probonmyed » Dinah, posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 20:35:32
I'm saying that I think there's a problem on my end with the notification button when I changed my email address. I'm not sure, but I think so. Dr. Bob will be able to answer for sure.
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 15, 2007, at 6:51:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-probonmyed » Lou PIlder, posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 20:56:50
> I'm saying that I think there's a problem on my end with the notification button when I changed my email address. I'm not sure, but I think so. Dr. Bob will be able to answer for sure.
>
> Dinah,
You wrote,[...Dr.(Hsiung) >will< be able to |answer for sure|...].
I appreciate your reply to me for I think that you are saying something that could resolve this situation , but I would like for you to confirm or not, for I am unsure as to what could be what you mean, for the grammatical structure of the statement by you in question here is now a toss-up to me.
Are you then meaning in your statement in question above that:
A. DR. Hsiung {will} be able to answer for sure that {there is a problem with your email address} so that my concern as to that I think that I will have the additional condition to me to send the notification again is still a condition to me to receive a response from the administration?
B. Dr. Hsiung will be able to answer for sure {concerning responding to me to the notification in question that I sent} and I will not have to think that there is an additional condition to me to send the notification in question to him again?
C. something else
If you could clarify as to which one, or something else, that you mean, then I could have the understanding that I am requesting.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 15, 2007, at 7:20:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-probonmyed » Lou PIlder, posted by Dinah on February 14, 2007, at 20:56:50
> I'm saying that I think there's a problem on my end with the notification button when I changed my email address. I'm not sure, but I think so. Dr. Bob will be able to answer for sure.
>
> Dinah,
Your reply to me is to me, as of now, a flip of a coin. I am unsure if it could be one or the other choices , or something else, in my reply to your reply to me.
I could send a notification now to see if you receive it or not, and if other deputies receive it or not. If you would like to do this, could you give me a post of your choice that we could use experimentally for this to see if you receive it or not?
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.