![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 9:36:58
In reply to Re: a generalization, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2008, at 1:01:11
> > Could you provide the link
>
> Sure:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802558.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Is not it {factual} that the one type is more accurate than the other? (search key words Toph, blood pressure). If is is factual, then could you post here in regards to your TOS here that it is fine to discuss your rational by posting here what your rationale is for writing that Phillpa broke a rule of yours here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 10:05:47
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsuing-gltshm? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 9:36:58
> > > Could you provide the link
> >
> > Sure:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802558.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Is not it {factual} that the one type is more accurate than the other? (search key words Toph, blood pressure). If is is factual, then could you post here in regards to your TOS here that it is fine to discuss your rational by posting here what your rationale is for writing that Phillpa broke a rule of yours here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.Mr. Hsiung,
Your rationale that has been posted here is that you write that Phillpa's use of the figurative language {more often than not}
constitutes in your thinking to be overgeneralizing.
But in searching this forum back around 8 years I can find no sanction to a member's use of that same phrase and a search brings up around 400 posts that could be in relation to the phrase. I posted about 6 of them as representative samples in a previous discussion. Then the definition of {overgeneralize} in Webster's dictionary, that is the standard used here, is that:{overgeneralizaion} [...implies an amount or degree {too great} to be |reasonable|...].
I fail to see your rationale for ostracizing a member here for using a phrase that was used for years and that the dictionary standard used here says that overgeneralizing is {too great to be reasonable}. This is why I am asking you to re post more to your rationale, if there is more, for using {overgeneraliztion} here.
You write here that you use the standard of {reasonablenes} and your TOS say tha you try to be {fair}. {Fair} has a meaning to be impartial and {ex-post facto} is not fair by another definition. I would like for you to post {more of your rationale} here, if there is more, again taking in mind the aspects of the definition of {overgenerlizing}, {impartial} and {fair}.
If you could, then I could respond accordingly by seeing more of your rationale, if there more, after reading my concerns about your original rationale.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 11:20:59
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsuing-morat, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 10:05:47
> > > > Could you provide the link
> > >
> > > Sure:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802558.html
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Is not it {factual} that the one type is more accurate than the other? (search key words Toph, blood pressure). If is is factual, then could you post here in regards to your TOS here that it is fine to discuss your rational by posting here what your rationale is for writing that Phillpa broke a rule of yours here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Your rationale that has been posted here is that you write that Phillpa's use of the figurative language {more often than not}
> constitutes in your thinking to be overgeneralizing.
> But in searching this forum back around 8 years I can find no sanction to a member's use of that same phrase and a search brings up around 400 posts that could be in relation to the phrase. I posted about 6 of them as representative samples in a previous discussion. Then the definition of {overgeneralize} in Webster's dictionary, that is the standard used here, is that:{overgeneralizaion} [...implies an amount or degree {too great} to be |reasonable|...].
> I fail to see your rationale for ostracizing a member here for using a phrase that was used for years and that the dictionary standard used here says that overgeneralizing is {too great to be reasonable}. This is why I am asking you to re post more to your rationale, if there is more, for using {overgeneraliztion} here.
> You write here that you use the standard of {reasonablenes} and your TOS say tha you try to be {fair}. {Fair} has a meaning to be impartial and {ex-post facto} is not fair by another definition. I would like for you to post {more of your rationale} here, if there is more, again taking in mind the aspects of the definition of {overgenerlizing}, {impartial} and {fair}.
> If you could, then I could respond accordingly by seeing more of your rationale, if there more, after reading my concerns about your original rationale.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Is it no great honor for me to post here to come to the aid of another member of this community. But I feel IMO that it is not only my duty out of fairness, but also my moral obligation.
You posted here that you are appying to the rule of {overgeneralizing} the phrase that Phillipa used here. Yet today, the dictionary, as the standard here, writes that overgenerizing is when something is written that implies a degree or amount too great to be thought as to be reasonable. Your past practice shows that the phrase was not deemed to be showing an amount or degree that was too great to be reasonable, nor can I find anywhere where another authority says that it does. If you know of one, could you post it here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
This brings up what my thinking is. I think that the phrase is not one be to deemed to be overgeneralizing. And I base that on the standards here used, including but not limited to, the Webster standard of dictionary definition.
I would like others here to know what ex post facto is.(citation D1). Ex post facto is Latin for {from a thing done afterward}. It it used in when rules are made for a community to allow member to have advanced knowlege of what a rule entails. Fairness could mean that rules for a community be well-defined and applied equally and that the rules be given in advance as to {how they will be applied}, because fairness and giving {advance knowlege of what the rules are} could be connected. It is my great conviction that in a mental-health community the use of {ex post facto} can cause damage and is not IMO good for the community as a whole. Without advance knowlege, then members could be accused of breaking a rule retroactivly to actions that others have already performed without those members being accused of breaking a rule.
In the case at hand, what Phillipa wrote could be so that it would be fine IMO for Mr. Hsiung to make a new rule to apply to that phrase. If not, then could all the members here over the years that had used that phrase think that they did something wrong and broke a rule of Robert Hsiung's? Could they then feel guilt and/or shame that they broke his rule?
Lou Pilder
citation D1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
Posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2008, at 12:01:08
In reply to Re: a generalization, posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2008, at 1:01:11
I believe it says I found the automatic ones to be less accurate than blow up ones with a stethescope that directly hear the blood pressure. Meaning the top number is the diastolic which is when the blood pressure is highest and systolic is the end or low end of blood pressure. I could site numerous examples but I chose not to as I believe that the e-mail from my family member was the reason for block. Yes splitting hairs is not in my best interests at this time as I have too many other problems. So I let it rest. Phillipa ps it was based on my experience as a nurse and the numerous doctors I worked with some who would not allow us to even use the automtatic ones. But I can't list them. So have a nice day. Love always
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 13:35:32
In reply to Re: a generalization, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2008, at 13:13:12
> > So are you saying your doctor said a blow up cuff is more accurate than an automatic? Hummm seems I was blocked for a generalization on that.
>
> Maybe it's splitting hairs, but IMO there's a difference between:
>
> > > his experience with wrist units is generally bad.
>
> and
>
> > > wrist units are generally bad.
>
> I hope that helps. Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
Your post has in it,[...wrist units are generally bad...]
You write that there is in your opinion a difference between that statement above and the other statement.
I think that there is the potential for one here, as per the grammatical structure of your statement, for one to consider that Phillipa posted something that means that one of the types is "bad". But I can not find any such statement here by Phillpa.
Phillpa wrote about as being a nurse in a hospital with doctors and paitients and the use of blood pressure devices that she liked the one verses the other because in her past practice she liked the accuracy of one verses the other. I do not see how that could mean that one is "bad". That does not IMO conclude that one is "bad". I can not find anything in her post that says that she says that one of the types is "bad". A generally accepted meaning of the word "bad" is that whatever is bad is {not acceptable}. But Phillipa only wrote that she liked the accuracy of one verses the other and made no mention that I can see that the other type was unacceptable. I have a gauge on the dashboard of my car that reads a function of the engine in calibrations and is very accurate. Other cars just have a red light that goes on if what is being measured goes outside of its operating range. Some prefer the red light and some prefer the gauge. I prefer the gauge because of the accuracy that I like. Others may not be concerned with the degree of accuracy that I like. But I am not saying that because there is a difference between the two, in that {I} prefer the gauge, that the red-light indicator is "bad"
I do not know what your intentions are here to have something in your post that has the potential IMO to have some others consider that Phillipa wrote, unless she did write that, and I welcome anyone to post a link to it if it exists. Could you post here why you had in your post,[...wrist units are generally bad...]if Phillpa did not post that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 13:57:17
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-nazcr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 13:35:32
> > > So are you saying your doctor said a blow up cuff is more accurate than an automatic? Hummm seems I was blocked for a generalization on that.
> >
> > Maybe it's splitting hairs, but IMO there's a difference between:
> >
> > > > his experience with wrist units is generally bad.
> >
> > and
> >
> > > > wrist units are generally bad.
> >
> > I hope that helps. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Your post has in it,[...wrist units are generally bad...]
> You write that there is in your opinion a difference between that statement above and the other statement.
> I think that there is the potential for one here, as per the grammatical structure of your statement, for one to consider that Phillipa posted something that means that one of the types is "bad". But I can not find any such statement here by Phillpa.
> Phillpa wrote about as being a nurse in a hospital with doctors and paitients and the use of blood pressure devices that she liked the one verses the other because in her past practice she liked the accuracy of one verses the other. I do not see how that could mean that one is "bad". That does not IMO conclude that one is "bad". I can not find anything in her post that says that she says that one of the types is "bad". A generally accepted meaning of the word "bad" is that whatever is bad is {not acceptable}. But Phillipa only wrote that she liked the accuracy of one verses the other and made no mention that I can see that the other type was unacceptable. I have a gauge on the dashboard of my car that reads a function of the engine in calibrations and is very accurate. Other cars just have a red light that goes on if what is being measured goes outside of its operating range. Some prefer the red light and some prefer the gauge. I prefer the gauge because of the accuracy that I like. Others may not be concerned with the degree of accuracy that I like. But I am not saying that because there is a difference between the two, in that {I} prefer the gauge, that the red-light indicator is "bad"
> I do not know what your intentions are here to have something in your post that has the potential IMO to have some others consider that Phillipa wrote, unless she did write that, and I welcome anyone to post a link to it if it exists. Could you post here why you had in your post,[...wrist units are generally bad...]if Phillpa did not post that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote, [...maybe its splitting hairs...]
If it is {maybe] it is splitting hairs, then could it not be that it is {maybe not} splitting hairs?
There is a test to make a determination as to if an action is splitting hairs or not. One could be the consequesnces to Phillipa here from what you say is {maybe} splitting hairs.
A NASCAR driver could be required to make a split decision based on what the gauges read on the dash. He has to make split decisions for his life could depend on the decision that he would make. I raced also, but in quarter-mile motorcycle gas. I also have an idea of a split decision and its consequences one way or the other and only had one gauge.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your use of {splitting hairs}. My idea is that something catyclismic could result if one does not rightly split the "hair". In this case, we are in discussion about your rationale for ostrcizing Phillipa for posting {more likely than not}. Now I do not see anything comming out of her statement that could be catastophic if one used one type verses the other. They both would give a blood pressure reading and those that prefer the one over the other could still have a reading. If one type was of the nature that one's life could be threatend by the use of one type, then could not one think that that type would be illegal to use in a hospital?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 3, 2008, at 15:37:17
In reply to Re: a generalization » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2008, at 12:01:08
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 11:30:52
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-nazcr2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 13:57:17
> > > > So are you saying your doctor said a blow up cuff is more accurate than an automatic? Hummm seems I was blocked for a generalization on that.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's splitting hairs, but IMO there's a difference between:
> > >
> > > > > his experience with wrist units is generally bad.
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > > > wrist units are generally bad.
> > >
> > > I hope that helps. Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Your post has in it,[...wrist units are generally bad...]
> > You write that there is in your opinion a difference between that statement above and the other statement.
> > I think that there is the potential for one here, as per the grammatical structure of your statement, for one to consider that Phillipa posted something that means that one of the types is "bad". But I can not find any such statement here by Phillpa.
> > Phillpa wrote about as being a nurse in a hospital with doctors and paitients and the use of blood pressure devices that she liked the one verses the other because in her past practice she liked the accuracy of one verses the other. I do not see how that could mean that one is "bad". That does not IMO conclude that one is "bad". I can not find anything in her post that says that she says that one of the types is "bad". A generally accepted meaning of the word "bad" is that whatever is bad is {not acceptable}. But Phillipa only wrote that she liked the accuracy of one verses the other and made no mention that I can see that the other type was unacceptable. I have a gauge on the dashboard of my car that reads a function of the engine in calibrations and is very accurate. Other cars just have a red light that goes on if what is being measured goes outside of its operating range. Some prefer the red light and some prefer the gauge. I prefer the gauge because of the accuracy that I like. Others may not be concerned with the degree of accuracy that I like. But I am not saying that because there is a difference between the two, in that {I} prefer the gauge, that the red-light indicator is "bad"
> > I do not know what your intentions are here to have something in your post that has the potential IMO to have some others consider that Phillipa wrote, unless she did write that, and I welcome anyone to post a link to it if it exists. Could you post here why you had in your post,[...wrist units are generally bad...]if Phillpa did not post that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote, [...maybe its splitting hairs...]
> If it is {maybe] it is splitting hairs, then could it not be that it is {maybe not} splitting hairs?
> There is a test to make a determination as to if an action is splitting hairs or not. One could be the consequesnces to Phillipa here from what you say is {maybe} splitting hairs.
> A NASCAR driver could be required to make a split decision based on what the gauges read on the dash. He has to make split decisions for his life could depend on the decision that he would make. I raced also, but in quarter-mile motorcycle gas. I also have an idea of a split decision and its consequences one way or the other and only had one gauge.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your use of {splitting hairs}. My idea is that something catyclismic could result if one does not rightly split the "hair". In this case, we are in discussion about your rationale for ostrcizing Phillipa for posting {more likely than not}. Now I do not see anything comming out of her statement that could be catastophic if one used one type verses the other. They both would give a blood pressure reading and those that prefer the one over the other could still have a reading. If one type was of the nature that one's life could be threatend by the use of one type, then could not one think that that type would be illegal to use in a hospital?
> Lou Pilder
Mr. Hsiung,
If you are going to post a reply to me here to my request to you for you to post why you had,[...wrist units are generally bad...],and [...splitting hairs...], could you consider the folowing in any reply here?
A. If you are using {splitting hairs} as an {idiom}, then a generally accepted idiom meaning is that if people splt hairs, they concentrate on tiny and unimportant details to find fault with something. (citation E2)
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/split+hairs.html
B.If you are wanting to mean a dictionary meaning of {splitting hairs}, a generally accepted dictionary meaning is that one is arguing by using very small differences or unimportant details. (citation E3) But this is problematic IMO to me because of what you posted that IMO others could have the potential to think that you are taking a statement out of a post as being having the potential for some others to think that it was Phillipa that posted such. This is seen in a post of yours as ;
[...wrist units are generally bad...]
If you could include what definitions, or some othere criteria, that you used for writing {splitting hairs},then I could have a better understanding of any reply that you may post and respond accordingly.
citation E3
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/split+hairs
Lou Pilder
Posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 11:30:52
Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
Tony P
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 19:48:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21
> Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
>
> 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
>
> 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
>
> 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
>
> It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
>
> Tony PTony P,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting others here to think after reading your post and if it is concerning in any way the member PHillipa and what she posted here and was ostracized from the community for.
you wrote,[...my..wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings...my GP gave me his opinion that the automatic units on the upper arm are more reliable...after using a gifted arm unit, I am getting more reliable readings as by comparison with his office readings...]
I am unsure as to if the following that you wrote is a conclusion of some sort or not. You wrote,[...It really {does go to show} how carefull we must be with generalizations,"over" or not...].
In respect to your statement,[...My GP's opinion is that automatic units that go on the upper arm are {much more}relaible;
The grammatical structure of your statement could mean that the upper arm unit that is automatic is more reliable than the wrist unit that is automatic. Could you clarify if that is what you are wanting to mean here? If you could, then I could post a response.
In respect to your statement,[...It really does go to show that we must be carefull about generalizations, "over" or not...].
The grammatical structure of your statement has me wondering as to what particular generalization you are referring to. Is it the statement in your original post concerning the doctor? Or is it the statement by Phillipa? Or someone else's statement? Or something else?
Let us look at Phillipa's statement,[...the automatic ones...]. Here there is not a distinction given as to if she is meaning the wrist or the arm or both cuffs. But her structure of her statement could mean both. I do not know if your GP's original statement included both types.
As to if there is a distinction as to if the automatic cuffs have better accuracy if they are on the upper arm or the wrist, there is scientific research for that determination.
In the following research report, the conclusion was that;[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closly with the manual device than the arm device...]citation F2
In another research study, it is cited that the manual type is more accurate. citationF3
I am unsure as to after reading the research reports as to what you are wanting to mean here because you write about generalizing, even overgeneralizing.
To overgeneralize is generally accepted to mean that a statement is referring to an amount or degree too great to be reasonable. Could you incorporate my response to you here with clarification as to if your post has anything to do with what Phillipa was ostracized from this community for? If you could, then I could have the opportunity ot respond accordingly.
Lou
citation F2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4887NB5-14&_user...
citation F3
http://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v16/n9/full/1001463a.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 20:29:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21
> Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
>
> 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
>
> 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
>
> 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
>
> It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
>
> Tony PTony P,
Here is another research study concerning theautomatic blood pressure monitors
In this research study, both the arm type that was automatic and the automatic wrist type was used and the conclusion was that;
[...A large descrepancy in the estimated prevalence of blood pressure categories wa observed using two different automatic measurement devices. This emphasizes that prevalence estimates based on automatic devices should be considered with caution. citation F4
I am requesting that you read and use this research report in any reply that you may post to me.
Lou
http://www.bpmonitoring.com/pt/re/bmp/abstract.00126097-200404000-00001,htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 20:32:45
In reply to Lou's request to Tony for clarification-bothinac, posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 20:29:29
> > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> >
> > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> >
> > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> >
> > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> >
> > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> >
> > Tony P
>
> Tony P,
> Here is another research study concerning theautomatic blood pressure monitors
> In this research study, both the arm type that was automatic and the automatic wrist type was used and the conclusion was that;
> [...A large descrepancy in the estimated prevalence of blood pressure categories wa observed using two different automatic measurement devices. This emphasizes that prevalence estimates based on automatic devices should be considered with caution. citation F4
> I am requesting that you read and use this research report in any reply that you may post to me.
> Lou
> http://www.bpmonitoring.com/pt/re/bmp/abstract.00126097-200404000-00001,htm
>the corrected link is
http://www.bpmonitoring.com/pt/re/bpm/abstract.00126097-200404000-00001.htm
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on February 7, 2008, at 20:53:01
In reply to correction to link, posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 20:32:45
Lou wrist cuffs are not used with a stetescope they are automatic. Only blow up one are used on the area of arm above the elbow. I've seen some need the blow up cuffs with stescope used on upper leg or lower leg as well in emergency situations where that was the only way to get some type of blood pressure but it wouldn't be that accurate. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 21:16:38
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21
> Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
>
> 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
>
> 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
>
> 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
>
> It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
>
> Tony PTony P,
You wrote,[...using the automatic arm-cuff...it really shows how carefull we must be...bless...dr.bob...]
I am unsure as to what you are blessing Dr. Bob, AKA Robert Hsiung, for. Does your blessing have any connection at all with Phillip's post and the fact that she was expelled from the forum as breaking a rule that Mr. Hsiung says is {overgeneralizing}? If you could clarify this for me, then I could have a better undertsanding of why you are wanting a blessing for Robert Hsiung and be better able to post a response here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 4:50:07
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21
> Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
>
> 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
>
> 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
>
> 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
>
> It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
>
> Tony PTony P,
In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:18:08
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-husonfrst » Tony P, posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 4:50:07
> > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> >
> > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> >
> > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> >
> > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> >
> > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> >
> > Tony P
>
> Tony P,
> In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
> I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
> I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
> Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
> Lou
>
>Hi Lou,
I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve on the admin board at this point? I think it's great that you are defending Phillipa, as she is definitely a highly valued member of the community, as are you. But it seems you aren't able to get much of a debate going with Dr. Bob.
Maybe you could focus your energy elsewhere? I love your posts on the faith board! I read everything, but I'm not at a level to discuss some of the high level theological things you discuss there. Anyways, I would hate to see all the hard work you are doing on the Admin board be fruitless, but I don't think you are going to get a satisfactory debate going with Dr. Bob at this point. History speaks for itself...
Regards,
Phoenix
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 8:46:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-husonfrst » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:18:08
> > > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> > >
> > > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> > >
> > > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> > >
> > > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> > >
> > > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> > >
> > > Tony P
> >
> > Tony P,
> > In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
> > I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
> > I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
> > Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
> > Lou
> >
> >
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve on the admin board at this point? I think it's great that you are defending Phillipa, as she is definitely a highly valued member of the community, as are you. But it seems you aren't able to get much of a debate going with Dr. Bob.
>
> Maybe you could focus your energy elsewhere? I love your posts on the faith board! I read everything, but I'm not at a level to discuss some of the high level theological things you discuss there. Anyways, I would hate to see all the hard work you are doing on the Admin board be fruitless, but I don't think you are going to get a satisfactory debate going with Dr. Bob at this point. History speaks for itself...
>
> Regards,
>
> PhoenixPhoenix,
You wrote,[...what you are hoping to achieve...I think it's great...you arn't able to get much...with Dr. Bob...elseware?...I love your posts...high level theological things...I would hate to see..fruitless..I don't think that you are going to get a satisfactory debate...History speaks...]
When a person is asked about what they wrote, and that person does not respond to the request for clarification in a timely manner, then in your opinion, is that response of no response a response? If so, in your opinion, what could the {no response} mean to you?
Lou
Posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:57:50
In reply to Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-cntgtno » Phoenix1, posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 8:46:29
> > > > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> > > >
> > > > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> > > >
> > > > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> > > >
> > > > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> > > >
> > > > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> > > >
> > > > Tony P
> > >
> > > Tony P,
> > > In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
> > > I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
> > > I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
> > > Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
> > > Lou
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve on the admin board at this point? I think it's great that you are defending Phillipa, as she is definitely a highly valued member of the community, as are you. But it seems you aren't able to get much of a debate going with Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Maybe you could focus your energy elsewhere? I love your posts on the faith board! I read everything, but I'm not at a level to discuss some of the high level theological things you discuss there. Anyways, I would hate to see all the hard work you are doing on the Admin board be fruitless, but I don't think you are going to get a satisfactory debate going with Dr. Bob at this point. History speaks for itself...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phoenix
>
> Phoenix,
> You wrote,[...what you are hoping to achieve...I think it's great...you arn't able to get much...with Dr. Bob...elseware?...I love your posts...high level theological things...I would hate to see..fruitless..I don't think that you are going to get a satisfactory debate...History speaks...]
> When a person is asked about what they wrote, and that person does not respond to the request for clarification in a timely manner, then in your opinion, is that response of no response a response? If so, in your opinion, what could the {no response} mean to you?
> LouHi Lou,
To me, the "no response" means that Dr. Bob is not going to get involved in the debate, and it's easier not to reply than to write a post saying he doesn't want to discuss it further. A post like that would only "fuel the fire". "No response" not a true response, but just speaking from history, it seems as if Dr. Bob would have replied by now if he intended to discuss this with you. I'm not saying that his lack of response is right or wrong. It is what it is. Maybe you are more persistent than I, and I commend you for that if it is the case. I just hate to see your hard efforts ignored here when you post so beautifully and thoughtfully on other boards, where people do engage you by responding.
Anyways, I don't want to pull myself into this debate, as it would probably just get me in trouble with the local authorities on PB. I just wanted to let you know what I think.
Thanks,
Phoenix
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 13:44:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-cntgtno » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:57:50
> > > > > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> > > > >
> > > > > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony P
> > > >
> > > > Tony P,
> > > > In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
> > > > I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
> > > > I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
> > > > Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Lou,
> > >
> > > I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve on the admin board at this point? I think it's great that you are defending Phillipa, as she is definitely a highly valued member of the community, as are you. But it seems you aren't able to get much of a debate going with Dr. Bob.
> > >
> > > Maybe you could focus your energy elsewhere? I love your posts on the faith board! I read everything, but I'm not at a level to discuss some of the high level theological things you discuss there. Anyways, I would hate to see all the hard work you are doing on the Admin board be fruitless, but I don't think you are going to get a satisfactory debate going with Dr. Bob at this point. History speaks for itself...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Phoenix
> >
> > Phoenix,
> > You wrote,[...what you are hoping to achieve...I think it's great...you arn't able to get much...with Dr. Bob...elseware?...I love your posts...high level theological things...I would hate to see..fruitless..I don't think that you are going to get a satisfactory debate...History speaks...]
> > When a person is asked about what they wrote, and that person does not respond to the request for clarification in a timely manner, then in your opinion, is that response of no response a response? If so, in your opinion, what could the {no response} mean to you?
> > Lou
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> To me, the "no response" means that Dr. Bob is not going to get involved in the debate, and it's easier not to reply than to write a post saying he doesn't want to discuss it further. A post like that would only "fuel the fire". "No response" not a true response, but just speaking from history, it seems as if Dr. Bob would have replied by now if he intended to discuss this with you. I'm not saying that his lack of response is right or wrong. It is what it is. Maybe you are more persistent than I, and I commend you for that if it is the case. I just hate to see your hard efforts ignored here when you post so beautifully and thoughtfully on other boards, where people do engage you by responding.
>
> Anyways, I don't want to pull myself into this debate, as it would probably just get me in trouble with the local authorities on PB. I just wanted to let you know what I think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> PhoenixFriends,
It is written here,[...Dr. Bob is not going to get involved in the debate...I commend you...I hate to see your..ignored...He would have replied by now if he was going to...I don't want to pull myself into this debate...probably get me in trouble with..authorities...].
Friends, it is not my intention to debate Mr. Hsiung. Mr. Hsiung's TOS says that if a member wants to know his rationale to ask here, or also to discuss actions that are taken by the administration and discuss the rules and policy here. I consider that that is an invitation to all here and I consider that I have an expectation for a timely reply.
I consider a request for clarification or for a rationale to be different from a debate. I consider that a debate could follow after a rationale is given, or clarification that is requested is given, to a request for such. For after the request for a rationale or clarification is provided, then all the members could have knowlege of the rationale and be better able, in my thinking, to join in the discussion.
I consider that waiting for a rationale to be given beyond a reasonable time could create a secret rationale untill it is provided, and to be not good for the community as a whole. I think that members having advance knowlege of rationales could have the potential to make a community a more supportive place and more conducive to civic harmony and the welfare of the members.
For members that are waiting to know the communities rationales in advance has historical parallels. We can learn from those. We can learn if we can know.
Come, let us reason together. I ask for your opinions. If Mr. Hsiung is applying his TOS that he does what in his thinkuing will be good for the community as a whole, how could it be good for the community as a whole in your opinions, if you think that it is good for the community as a whole, for there to be requests for rationales from the administrator and clarification from the administration that members are in waiting for? I also ask, how long is it reasonable for the administration to take for a rationale or clarification to be provided? It is written here that the member thinks that I will not get a rationale or clarification as requested by the nature that in the past the member writes that I did not receive one to some other requests to Mr. Hsiung for if he was to reply, he would have done so already according to the member here. If that is the case, I ask what in your opinions that could mean.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on February 9, 2008, at 8:27:19
In reply to Re: a generalization » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2008, at 12:01:08
it was posted:
> I believe that the e-mail from my family member was the reason for block. >
~~~ If that is true I would like to see the FAQ reflect that blocks can be given in response to an email from a family member. I find that detail very important to participating on this site and would feel not informed (possibly even feeling a bit misled) not knowing that.I would rather choose to think blocks are given due to **board** posting behavior that you, as Adm. of this site, deemed not fitting the stated guidelines of your site --- if there's criteria different from this, as a poster, I would like to be aware of it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 11, 2008, at 1:51:44
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob could you address?, posted by Glydin on February 9, 2008, at 8:27:19
> I would rather choose to think blocks are given due to **board** posting behavior that you, as Adm. of this site, deemed not fitting the stated guidelines of your site
That is in fact what they're based on. That and sometimes babblemail or other Babble-associated behavior.
Bob
Posted by zazenducke on February 15, 2008, at 14:57:42
In reply to Re: why blocks are given, posted by Dr. Bob on February 11, 2008, at 1:51:44
because you enjoy it
because you are a bully
because your partiality builds loyalty in your mentally ill deputy women
Posted by Phoenix1 on March 10, 2008, at 22:28:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-cntgtno » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:57:50
Lou, if you posted in a fashion that the average person could decode, and didn't make so many requests for clarifications, I think you would be involved in more conversations here. And don't worry so much about the Nazi's. They're just a sad powerless organization today. They will leave you alone.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 11, 2008, at 2:34:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-cntgtno » Phoenix1, posted by Phoenix1 on March 10, 2008, at 22:28:55
> Lou, if you posted in a fashion that the average person could decode
>Deneb, you're a really nice person. But don't you think this love Bob thing has gone a little too far? He will never love you back, not in the way you want unfortunately.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, or jump to conclusions about others.
Since you've expressed your opinion of and intent not to follow the civility rules here, in several other recent posts, I'm going to block you from posting for 4 weeks, per the current calculator in the FAQ - http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
And I apologize for not being either Dinah or Dr. Bob.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin and should of course be civil.
Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
-- 10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2008, at 14:51:30
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsuing-xpstfcto, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 11:20:59
> > > > > Could you provide the link
> > > >
> > > > Sure:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802558.html
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Is not it {factual} that the one type is more accurate than the other? (search key words Toph, blood pressure). If is is factual, then could you post here in regards to your TOS here that it is fine to discuss your rational by posting here what your rationale is for writing that Phillpa broke a rule of yours here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Your rationale that has been posted here is that you write that Phillpa's use of the figurative language {more often than not}
> > constitutes in your thinking to be overgeneralizing.
> > But in searching this forum back around 8 years I can find no sanction to a member's use of that same phrase and a search brings up around 400 posts that could be in relation to the phrase. I posted about 6 of them as representative samples in a previous discussion. Then the definition of {overgeneralize} in Webster's dictionary, that is the standard used here, is that:{overgeneralizaion} [...implies an amount or degree {too great} to be |reasonable|...].
> > I fail to see your rationale for ostracizing a member here for using a phrase that was used for years and that the dictionary standard used here says that overgeneralizing is {too great to be reasonable}. This is why I am asking you to re post more to your rationale, if there is more, for using {overgeneraliztion} here.
> > You write here that you use the standard of {reasonablenes} and your TOS say tha you try to be {fair}. {Fair} has a meaning to be impartial and {ex-post facto} is not fair by another definition. I would like for you to post {more of your rationale} here, if there is more, again taking in mind the aspects of the definition of {overgenerlizing}, {impartial} and {fair}.
> > If you could, then I could respond accordingly by seeing more of your rationale, if there more, after reading my concerns about your original rationale.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Is it no great honor for me to post here to come to the aid of another member of this community. But I feel IMO that it is not only my duty out of fairness, but also my moral obligation.
> You posted here that you are appying to the rule of {overgeneralizing} the phrase that Phillipa used here. Yet today, the dictionary, as the standard here, writes that overgenerizing is when something is written that implies a degree or amount too great to be thought as to be reasonable. Your past practice shows that the phrase was not deemed to be showing an amount or degree that was too great to be reasonable, nor can I find anywhere where another authority says that it does. If you know of one, could you post it here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
> This brings up what my thinking is. I think that the phrase is not one be to deemed to be overgeneralizing. And I base that on the standards here used, including but not limited to, the Webster standard of dictionary definition.
> I would like others here to know what ex post facto is.(citation D1). Ex post facto is Latin for {from a thing done afterward}. It it used in when rules are made for a community to allow member to have advanced knowlege of what a rule entails. Fairness could mean that rules for a community be well-defined and applied equally and that the rules be given in advance as to {how they will be applied}, because fairness and giving {advance knowlege of what the rules are} could be connected. It is my great conviction that in a mental-health community the use of {ex post facto} can cause damage and is not IMO good for the community as a whole. Without advance knowlege, then members could be accused of breaking a rule retroactivly to actions that others have already performed without those members being accused of breaking a rule.
> In the case at hand, what Phillipa wrote could be so that it would be fine IMO for Mr. Hsiung to make a new rule to apply to that phrase. If not, then could all the members here over the years that had used that phrase think that they did something wrong and broke a rule of Robert Hsiung's? Could they then feel guilt and/or shame that they broke his rule?
> Lou Pilder
> citation D1
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htmMr. Hsiung and friends,
The rule here by Mr. Hsiung comcerning {overgeneralizing} has now come up in another thread here.
If you are interested in this, you could email me if you like to see the thread and what has transpirerd from my concerns to the administration about it. And if Mr. Hsiug could read this thread over again and reply to anything there, I would appreciate it.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
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.