![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:13:29
» DrBob »
My open handed request... not asking for much here... even though Lou Pilder continually ignores your three response limit suggestion... (Let him try that on the FAITH "minefield")...
Issues of faith, closely held beliefs, religion and religiosity, aren't going to be altered or improved on the board where Babble business is conducted and discussed! I implore you to please discourage faith discussion from appearing in admin. Please??!?
Just because the Admin board feels like an absolute and a 'god-board' (feels like god lerks here), Babble can therefore feel religiously comfortable and generally familiar. Problem! Businesses are rarely successful in the long run that pander only to feelings and 'feel-goods'. The I.R.S. is always lerking just outside of feelings with facts and data.....!
Therefore, I imagine continueing to pander to those insisting on debating religion and religiosity here on Admin will continue to erode Admin, and Babble will suffer; I imagine this. The 'DUH!' is that you have graciously provided us with our appropriate forum, the FAITH' board, and you welcome us to go there.
Rod
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2004, at 15:25:29
In reply to » DrBob » please move faith stuff off admin???, posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:13:29
It is written inthis thread that [...Lou Pilder,(me), continually ignores your 3 response limit suggestion..].
There may be a misunderstanding here. Dr. Hsiung has written in a respone to me that a "correction" does not count as going toward the three posts which are {consecutive} 3 posts. I do not believe that I have ignored the rule here, but if someone sees that I have posted more than 3 consecutive posts in the same thread, could you let me be aware of such by giving me the first url? Also, responses to different people, although they may be seen as more than 3 consecutive posts, are not counted as being the same.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2004, at 15:42:01
In reply to » DrBob » please move faith stuff off admin???, posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:13:29
It is written inthis thread,[...continueing to ...to those ...debating religion...Babble will suffer..].
I do not think that I am debating religion on the administrative board when I bring my concerns to this forum for administrative consideration. Are there other posts on this board that do debate religion? If so, could someone point this out to me? Perhaps the word "debate" could be clarified?
Lou
Posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:42:16
In reply to Lou's response to what is written in this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2004, at 15:25:29
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 18, 2004, at 16:10:17
In reply to Lou's response doesn't add clarity to this thread (nm), posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:42:16
I think you may misunderstand the exemptions in the three post limit, and also I'm not really crazy about using an overused phrase but P.B.C.
>... even though Lou Pilder continually ignores your three response limit suggestion... (Let him try that on the FAITH "minefield")...
P.B.C
Posted by Phillipa on December 18, 2004, at 20:36:01
In reply to Lou's response doesn't add clarity to this thread (nm), posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 15:42:16
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 18, 2004, at 22:04:42
In reply to Lou's response to what is written in this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2004, at 15:25:29
I thought what Lou said was clear. According to Dr. Bob Corrections added after a post don't count as one of the posts in the three post limit, and a response to another individuals question on a thread doesn't count as a one of the three post limit either, so there very well may be more than three posts by a single poster on one thread.
So as I understand it, it's it's three sequential posts, and then if someone poses a question to that poster they have their three post limit renewed.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 18, 2004, at 23:43:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to what is written in this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on December 18, 2004, at 22:04:42
I agree that Lou's clarification did add something to this discussion. Rod posted his experience of Lou's posts (as in they did not follow the 3 post rule). I have noticed that Lou scrupulously follows this rule, so I was surprised to see someone disagree.
I also felt that statement was not necessary to the rest of Rod's post and I felt sad when I read it.
I agree with Gabbi, Rod, please be civil.
gg
Posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 23:55:00
In reply to Lou's response to what is written in this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2004, at 15:25:29
1. I have no administrative imperative over anybody. Lou can post as many times as he wants to and probably will. This isn't 'so' because I say its 'so'. Dr Bob, who has been running this site for over nine (9) years makes the rules, not 'nobody' like me.
2. This thread is a request directly to Dr Bob. I'll wait for his response. Can we all please wait for his response?
Rod
PS: How about a 10 year anniversary celebration? I have a dim glimmer that this concept has already been discussed. What Is the current status of this idea?
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 19, 2004, at 0:38:55
In reply to Two things................, posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 23:55:00
>
> 2. This thread is a request directly to Dr Bob. I'll wait for his response. Can we all please wait for his response?
If I see something that I would feel demeaned by, directed toward someone else, I'll say something rather than wait for Dr. Bob to make a determination. We do have that right here, and I'm glad, it's important for posters to know that other Babblers won't tolerate unfair remarks and that they care. If you want to be able to speak freely about a poster in whatever manner you wish, you have the option of e-mailing Dr. Bob privately.
Posted by 64bowtie on December 19, 2004, at 0:57:06
In reply to Two things................, posted by 64bowtie on December 18, 2004, at 23:55:00
Gabbi & GG,
I hastily commented inside a thread in a manner that had no material link to my comment. Bad idea! Please accept my apology. I will refrain from these misguided impetuosities in the future.
I am asking Dr-Bob if we do in-fact have a faith board where defending posts point for point of each and every position already unfolded in the original post, is better than doing it at the Admin board???
Isn't the faith board a good enough place to discuss ad-nauseum the merits of our beliefs? Isn't the Admin board a good place for doing the business of the site, not the separate points contained in the post? Can't the points of the offensive post be "shaken-out" over there on the faith board, since that's where it all began?
Or, am I just wired so differently that I leave folks saddened when I stand-up for something like this? Isn't my request for policy clarification for my concerns about faith issues encraoching into the decorum of the Admin board appropriate? Or, would discussion of this encroachment be more appropriate for direct e-mail with Dr-Bod? (note: these are all questions; none are statements...)
RSVP
Rod
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 19, 2004, at 1:06:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to what is written in this thread, posted by gardenergirl on December 18, 2004, at 23:43:27
Posted by gardenergirl on December 19, 2004, at 1:22:29
In reply to Gabbi and GG, I've been bad again..., posted by 64bowtie on December 19, 2004, at 0:57:06
Rod,
I'm sorry I didn't address the other content in your post. I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other about that. (A red letter day?) :) But I realize that your thread has shifted in topic.At any rate, I'm glad you responded. You might want to consider directing your apology to Lou, though.
Regards,
gg
Posted by 64bowtie on December 19, 2004, at 2:40:53
In reply to Re: Gabbi and GG, I've been bad again..., posted by gardenergirl on December 19, 2004, at 1:22:29
> You might want to consider directing your apology to Lou, though.
>
> Regards,
> gg<<< Thank you so much for seeing a point other than Lou's. OhByTheWay, he has never addressed a point of mine. He floods the airways with a deluge of HIS points, moving the discussion focus toward HIS issues. Should I call him to task for what he does? Not if it doesn't mess with my original thread.
This time he messed with my original thread!
I am still concerned that I caused conditions that led you to sadness... You deserve better from me....
Rod
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2004, at 21:22:14
In reply to Seems he's not interested in what I think....... » gardenergirl, posted by 64bowtie on December 19, 2004, at 2:40:53
> he has never addressed a point of mine. He floods the airways with a deluge of HIS points, moving the discussion focus toward HIS issues.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
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, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
--
Not to deflect this discussion, but you seem to be feeling that your issues are neglected while someone else's are attended to. Would you be willing to consider whether you've been in situations like that in the past?
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 64bowtie on December 20, 2004, at 2:19:01
In reply to Re: please be civil » 64bowtie, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2004, at 21:22:14
>
> Would you be willing to consider whether you've been in situations like that in the past?
><<< Thanks. I have... considered that and lotsa more stuff. Much of what I came here to Babble was very cloistered, and specifically protected by the The Salvation Army ARC. I parachuted into uncertain conditions here at Babble in hopes of contiued study and learning.
My style is to propose a presupposition, in hopes of being evokative. Seems I missed the big picture that a large percentage of posting is a crying out for support and caring. My "helmet wasn't on straight" when I landed. For that I apologise. ...gave me a slanted look at things...
From that perspective, how could I judge anyone as ignoring me intentionally? Bad idea if I did...
The Salvation Army was convinced that they were in the midst of a watershed recovery technology, and didn't want to have it rejected and deminished by the Mental Health Industry until the proof was clear. David Peck was visited by a lethal cancer before he could publish his findings. I picked up what pieces I felt certain of and continue to wrastle-away at the rest.
I don't have State Certifications, but I have a lifetime of study and synthesis and integration of my lifetime of learning. My dissertation discusses certified learning vs self & shared learning. More questions left unanswered there toooo.
For these reasons I suggest that I'm more sneaky and intrusive than just being misunderstood or ignored.
I also sense that I came here a little arrogant. (((Dinah))), bless her pea-pickin' heart, taught me humility via her graciousness and her patience. I do sense I have irritated enough folks herein that I might have something like an imaginary target on my back. I hear ruffled-feathers often, so I back track and try again....... sometimes, if I'm lucky!
Rod
PS: I feel very lucky to have found Babble. I was searching for like-sites to that of Lucinda Bassett (Mid-West Center for Stress and Anxiety in Ohio) and poof, up pops Babble... (on a Yahoo! search)
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2004, at 1:43:17
In reply to Re: please be civil --- [good question] » Dr. Bob, posted by 64bowtie on December 20, 2004, at 2:19:01
Posted by 64bowtie on December 21, 2004, at 3:04:33
In reply to Re: Gabbi and GG, I've been bad again..., posted by gardenergirl on December 19, 2004, at 1:22:29
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.