![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2009, at 16:51:05
Mr. Hsiung and his deputies,
This is my reminder that there is a new outstanding notification that I sent a few days ago.
My overiding concern now, in regards to that there are multiple outstanding notifications, is that I can not know as to why the notifications are outstanding so that I could have an idea to rule out or confirm what one could have the potential to think in relation to this ongoing situation and try to understand youor action of not taking action and if I could or could not send other notifications because there are outstanding ones.
Also, members could email me if they like to see a link concerning mental health aspects of this type of situatiuon including the origin of the phrase {as soon as possible} and its historical parallels.
This also brings up your TOS that says that you would like others to trust you in what you do for you are doing what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. I ask, how could having multiple outstanding notifications with reminders and reminders to the reminders and even other attempts to have the notifications acted upon, be good for the community as a whole? And is not the whole equal to the sum of it's parts?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Sigismund on July 13, 2009, at 17:07:45
In reply to Lou's reminder-owtstan-ho=sigma prts, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2009, at 16:51:05
Lou
I don't understand the first thing about the TOS, although very generally I appreciate that it involves obligations on the owners and operators of sites such as these.
But anyway...
How many notifications are outstanding?
How long have they been outstanding for?
Posted by Kath on July 13, 2009, at 17:30:12
In reply to Lou's reminder-owtstan-ho=sigma prts, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2009, at 16:51:05
Does 'notifications' mean where you Notify Administration?
If so, maybe they read the post referred to & decided no action was necessary.
If I have ever clicked the Notify Admin. box, I have not expected a reply. But maybe that's just me. I had no idea that anyone from Admin would reply - I just thought that they'd review the post & make a decision.
Respectfully, Kath
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 16, 2009, at 16:07:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder-owtstan-ho=sigma prts » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on July 13, 2009, at 17:07:45
> Lou
> I don't understand the first thing about the TOS, although very generally I appreciate that it involves obligations on the owners and operators of sites such as these.
> But anyway...
> How many notifications are outstanding?
> How long have they been outstanding for?Sigismund,
You wrote,[...how many...?]
The outstanding notification are of 3 classes.
A. use of the notification system
B. requests to Mr. Hsiung for clarification/rationales/identification etc. etc..
C. requests to deputies for them to clarify what they wrote to me.
In looking at the board , there are requests unresponded to and outstanding notifications. As to how many, they are plainly visible and I have not counted them, but if one goes through the archives they can see the number themselves as that the thread ends without a reply from Mr. Hsiung or a deputy to me.
I would estimate that there could be a number of these outstanding requests that IMO could have the potential to lead some to want to know the reason for them being outstanding. Are you a person that could want to know why they are oustanding? If so, could you emial me if you prefer not to post your reply here? If so, I have a large body of links to articles concerning this ongoing situation that I could share with you in relation to the issues of mental health involved in this ongoing situation.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2009, at 15:11:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder-owtstan-ho=sigma prts » Lou Pilder, posted by Kath on July 13, 2009, at 17:30:12
> Does 'notifications' mean where you Notify Administration?
>
> If so, maybe they read the post referred to & decided no action was necessary.
>
> If I have ever clicked the Notify Admin. box, I have not expected a reply. But maybe that's just me. I had no idea that anyone from Admin would reply - I just thought that they'd review the post & make a decision.
>
> Respectfully, KathKath,
You wrote,[...I had no idea that anyone from Admin would reply...]
There are many aspects here to the notification system that may be unbeknownst to you. Those could include;
A. The origin of the conception of the system
B. The intended stated purpose of the system
C. What innitiated the construction of the system
D. The use of the system as can be seen
E. The historical parallels of the system as it is administered here
F. What the consequences could be, if the notifications remain outstanding, to the mental health, or safety of those using the system and there is a significant time lag, or even not a response, from the time of the confirmation of the notification and the time that it is acted on, if acted on at all.
Here is a link that writes by Mr. Hsiung that the admin will act in one way or another to those using the notification system here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
Posted by Kath on July 25, 2009, at 20:32:13
In reply to Lou's reply- » Kath, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2009, at 15:11:00
Thx Lou,
not sure what the rule of 3 is that's referred to in that link.
Kath
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2009, at 6:24:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by Kath on July 25, 2009, at 20:32:13
> Thx Lou,
>
> not sure what the rule of 3 is that's referred to in that link.
>
> KathKath,
You wrote,[...not sure what the rule of 3...]
The rule states that one can not post more then 3 consecutive posts and there are exceptions listed in the TOS here.
The intent of the rule can be seen in some threads by comments and such. One intent is that there could be what Mr. Hsiung says is a {less confident} member and the rule is to accommodate that class of members that at this time I have posted a request to Mr. Hsiung to list the criteria that determine if one is a less confident member, for I have research articles concerning this and I could email them to you at your request.
Another intent of the rule as stated in the TOS here is that if one posts more than 3 consecutive posts that they are in some way, that I do not understand, to be not sharing the board. There are ramifications to what Mr. Hsiung has posted concerning that that I would like to discuss by email. There are two aspects here. One is that no member is forced to be in a thread or to take a test about what is in a thread. Also, the board is open and members are free to join in a thread or go to another thread or board for what they would like to discuss. The aspect of an open forum is different from a closed situation like a classroom where members are held accountable for the content whereas here no member is requierd to join any thread.
But the overiding aspect of the rule, to me, is that I can not post after 3 consecutive posts unless someone else posts. I have asked that other members to not post just to make a post after my 3 posts unless their concern in the thread is to add to the aspects posted.
The rule also has a very great effect on my ability to respond to Mr. Hsiung in relation to his TOS here in regards to ask about his rationales, discuss rules, discuss his actions and such for after 3 posts I can not continue unless Mr. Hsiung or someone else replies in the thread.
The following link to a post has two links to other posts that show that Mr. Hsiung knows that if a post has a statement that is not addressed by him that he agrees that members and others could think that it is acceptable. This means that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down or accused that are left unsanctioned could cause others to think that what is not sanctioned is acceptable here. This could IMO based on the historical record to be an open flame for hatred toward the Jews to be spread to other forums and communities. I could at your request email you with the links to those type of posts so I would like for you to reasd the links in the following.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/863780.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2011, at 6:48:03
In reply to Lou's reply-in10nt » Kath, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2009, at 6:24:37
> > Thx Lou,
> >
> > not sure what the rule of 3 is that's referred to in that link.
> >
> > Kath
>
> Kath,
> You wrote,[...not sure what the rule of 3...]
> The rule states that one can not post more then 3 consecutive posts and there are exceptions listed in the TOS here.
> The intent of the rule can be seen in some threads by comments and such. One intent is that there could be what Mr. Hsiung says is a {less confident} member and the rule is to accommodate that class of members that at this time I have posted a request to Mr. Hsiung to list the criteria that determine if one is a less confident member, for I have research articles concerning this and I could email them to you at your request.
> Another intent of the rule as stated in the TOS here is that if one posts more than 3 consecutive posts that they are in some way, that I do not understand, to be not sharing the board. There are ramifications to what Mr. Hsiung has posted concerning that that I would like to discuss by email. There are two aspects here. One is that no member is forced to be in a thread or to take a test about what is in a thread. Also, the board is open and members are free to join in a thread or go to another thread or board for what they would like to discuss. The aspect of an open forum is different from a closed situation like a classroom where members are held accountable for the content whereas here no member is requierd to join any thread.
> But the overiding aspect of the rule, to me, is that I can not post after 3 consecutive posts unless someone else posts. I have asked that other members to not post just to make a post after my 3 posts unless their concern in the thread is to add to the aspects posted.
> The rule also has a very great effect on my ability to respond to Mr. Hsiung in relation to his TOS here in regards to ask about his rationales, discuss rules, discuss his actions and such for after 3 posts I can not continue unless Mr. Hsiung or someone else replies in the thread.
> The following link to a post has two links to other posts that show that Mr. Hsiung knows that if a post has a statement that is not addressed by him that he agrees that members and others could think that it is acceptable. This means that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down or accused that are left unsanctioned could cause others to think that what is not sanctioned is acceptable here. This could IMO based on the historical record to be an open flame for hatred toward the Jews to be spread to other forums and communities. I could at your request email you with the links to those type of posts so I would like for you to reasd the links in the following.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/863780.htmlKath,
There are other aspects now. Could you email me?
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.