Posted by chemist on May 23, 2005, at 6:35:40
In reply to Thanks » Shy_Girl, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:07
> As far as so's concern, writing is not something I claim expertise in, and I wasn't proposing that exact wording. Just putting out an idea to see if it would resonate with those who have had trouble at Babble for one reason or another.<hello there, chemist here...i was drawn to this thread for several reasons, the most glaring (to me) being Dinah's RFC targeting (not exclusively, by read) those of us who have had trouble here at PB. i qualify.
first up: post from so -> Dinah, 22/05/2005. Dr. Hsiung does not offer psychiatric advice to any entities who/that make use of www dot dr-bob dot org. it is not a matter of rules, semantics, or opinion: it is illegal, not endorsed by the oversight agencies such as the APA and AMA, would not pass muster with federal, state, and local authorities, and simply is not a service that has been proferred by Dr. Hsiung. practicing medicine across state and country borders is not looked upon with favor. prescriptions and in-person visits are problematic.
second: a request appears to have been made which more than infers that Dr. Hsiung can attend to his perceived duties on this site by securing more sleep: i am not privvy to Dr. Hsiung's sleep and waking regimen, and i suspect that as Dinah notes, family members would perhaps be the best source of information in this regard. in any event, the issue is not germane when paralleled to whether or not one would entrust their safety to a sleep-deprived and over-worked airline pilot. the collective PB community - one-time browsers through long-term steadfasts - cannot be (collectively) labeled a ``customer,'' if for the only reason being that the ``shopkeeper'' actually does not provide a tangible service aside from an online bulletin board. the issue of whether or not money changes hands is moot - an exchange of legal/accepted tender does not a vendor/customer relationship make.
third: the assertion that if people need ``this sort of service, they need quality service'' is an opinion for which i cannot locate an antecedent. is it the ``administrative planning'' to which the reference is made? the task in question is determined not likely to be an occasional talk to one's peers about a ``web project'' or requesting and presumably digesting (again) peer-source feedback in a casual setting. instead, a suggestion for a round-table discussion with one's peers during which time appropriate actions - to be executed when required in a clinical situation - are subject to revision and veto sounds to my ears like overkill, and service at that level was not promised, implicitly or otherwise. the internet - and this website - is/are a strange ``clinical setting,'' i would concur. however, it is not a clinic, and all matters addressed on PB - from pills to therapy to writing and so forth - are handled by the posters. Dr. Hsiung polices the area: he does not practice medicine online.
fourth: Robert Hsiung is the registrant on record with PIR - the sole registrant - as the person who secured the domain name on august 4, 1998; updated the registration 5.25 years later; and will have to address the issue of renewal in the year 2007. Dr. Hsiung appears to outsource the task of hosting the web site: whether my hypothesis is accurate is a good question. however, two nameservers are noted, as is the name and contact information of the sys admins. do a whois and check it out...
fifth: the issue of what are deemed ``inconsistent'' and ``arbitrary'' rules by the owner, registered administrator (not IT), and official copyright holder to this (my ramblings now, afore, and later) and all other missives posted herein simply because arptables in the state of virginia are kept up-to-date is an opinion. also in the opinion category is the issue concerning how mistakes and subsequent perceived and/or real revisions and/or amendments to the ``rules'' are adjusted by the owner of the property we (PB) tax on a regular basis. this is not our property. i have been given a reduced sentence, and i have taken my lumps. i earned them all.
sixth: from whence did poster ``so'' determine that ``there is a notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients?'' this statement is followed by the alluded-to airline pilot parallel: perhaps i do not fly on the same carrier(s) as ``so,'' and thus i fail to identify a foil packet of peanuts i cannot open (even if i want to) and a soft drink as a gift of mercy; and if there is any question that the FAA and aviation-associated unions are endorsing 168-hour work weeks for the flight and ground crews, i politely suggest that the interested have a look at the ``rules'' in place that appear to be an attempt (in part) to minimize repeat performances that made the news years ago.
seventh: the assertion ``so'' makes in re: ``broad license'' by medical professionals at the top tier of the medical trade being little more than responsibility to an ``authority'' identified as the judgement of the medical professional almost in toto. again: Robert Hsiung has arranged to secure a static IP address which is pointed to by a DNS when the appropriate text is transmitted. he does not practice medicine on this site, and he does not even chime in with information that might be ``more correct'' in cases where runaway threads and misinformation - some quite dangerous - are posted. he spends a great deal of time ensuring that people such as myself are aware that i am using his property and must abide by his rules.
eighth: ``so'' is not informed about the realities of academe - i am - and in particular, medical schools, where a nine-month salary is a rarity and up to 85% - or more - of a faculty member's salary is soft money that must be secured through funding agencies. The university enjoys anywhere from 40% to over 100% in overhead (F&A; insurance; etc.) which arrives with a funded proposal. Given the economy and across-the-board cuts in funding (except DHS), if overhead is 75%, and one requests $300K/3 years, one actually budgets $525K - standard, but in tight times, the proposal had better be solid gold. Dr. Hsiung is currently (according to the online faculty directory at u.chicago/pritzker) appointed as an Assistant Professor: this is the first step towards the top tier. whether or not Dr. Hsiung has satisfied the Committee on Tenure and Promotion to the extent that a jump to Associate or Full (perhaps even chaired) is merited, it appears that the top tier has not been reached just yet...further, medical schools are quite aggressive in doing away with tenure proper, although i am not aware if this is true at u. chicago.
ninth: ``so'' opines that Dr. Hsiung should be capable of articulating to a funding agency (at least one, i suppose) that monies are needed to overhaul the dr-bob website and that ``so'' ``is not talking research funding, either.'' i ask of ``so:'' having precluded solicitations to NIH, NSF, ACS-PRF, Burroughs-Wellcome, and many others bent on funding applied and - less now than 30 years ago - basic research, where do you suggest Dr. Hsiung attain the money to fully immerse himself in the business of providing a service that, by your own admission, you are indifferent as to whether or not it can survive in the near future?
p.s. i find the atmosphere at PB to my liking. Dr. Hsiung and myself are not chums, should that thought occur: aside from footing the bill, scrubbing illegal information (online pharmas, e.g.), and requesting that we act as adults - and giving us a ``time-out'' if/when he feels that a guest using his resources has crossed the line - it seems to me that little intervention by Dr. Hsiung - if any - is called for, given the nature of the crowd here...
tenth: ``so'' states that the exchange of information on PB takes a backseat to increasingly bad behaviour of the posters because Dr. Hsiung is ``overemphasizing feelings'' and ``his speculations about hypothetical feelings:'' the second statement quoted is outstanding; the first is, again, an opinion...there are posters on PB who are very sensitive to statements that appear benign to me, at least...more than one PBer has been very hurt by words that were perhaps penned with little to no intent to cause distress, while yours truly misses the point and gets another vacation.....in any event, your prose is quite prolific - a nod to Heller - and i hope you do not take any of this personally or deem it uncivil, as i have done my best......yours, chemist
poster:chemist
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501573.html