![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 36. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 22:24:26
Friends,
I apologise if I upset anyone here with whatever I wrote. But being that reasonable people can and do disagree, and misunderstandings can be corrected, let us go forward.
Best wishes to you all,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 0:03:12
In reply to Lou's apology to the forum, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 22:24:26
> Friends,
> I apologise if I upset anyone here with whatever I wrote. But being that reasonable people can and do disagree, and misunderstandings can be corrected, let us go forward.
> Best wishes to you all,
> LouFriends,
It is written in another thread that my apology does not say that I am sorry about anything that I wrote here.
I am sorry that what I wrote caused anyone any upsetness, for it is not my intention for anyone to be upset with what I write.
DR. Hsiung wrote that what he wrote,[...didn't come out right...]. I can understand that and I think that what I wrote did not come out right either. I would like to go forward and learn from this discussion.
Best wishes to you all,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 8:13:01
In reply to Lou's apology to the forum, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 22:24:26
Thank you, Lou. I appreciate that.
I'm as interested in anyone in moving forward, but I wonder what moving forward will look like.
Does it mean that you acknowledge that people here, for the most part, are not antisemitic, and that you will take care in comparing posts to atrocities committed against the Jews? Does it mean that you realize that people are hurt by such comparisons?
What would you like it to mean on the part of others?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 8:27:23
In reply to Re: Lou's apology to the forum » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 8:13:01
Dinah,
You wrote,[...what would you like it to mean on the part of others?...].
I think that I would like to see others not associate with what I write with that if you read it that you will somehow write back to me in an uncivil manner. I do not appreciate any type of potential association that could be seen with that concept being put forth here, particulaarry in a mental-health forum.
If that suggestion is allowed to go unanswered by me, then it is my great fear that there could be the potential for some others here to write things accusing me of being in some way the cause of their distress or such from reading what I write. Or writing that they have to leave the forum because I am a member and theafore I could post here. I am asking that the forum not accept Dr. Hsiung's suggestion to [...not read in the first place...] posts that have my name on it. I do not appreciate being associated with the potential that if you read what I post that there is the potential that you will react in an uncivil manner. I feel hugly defamed by any such suggestion, being as an alternative, a reminder or whatever the statement is called,for what is the difference if it says,[...not to read in the first place..]?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 15, 2005, at 9:05:43
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-othrscoop » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 8:27:23
Posted by SLS on July 15, 2005, at 9:12:53
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-othrscoop » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 8:27:23
> I am asking that the forum not accept Dr. Hsiung's suggestion to [...not read in the first place...]
I don't see what the problem is, Lou. I rarely read your posts anyway. I choose not to for various reasons. Do you feel defamed by this?
It is your privelege to write and post here on Psycho-Babble. It is my RIGHT not to read. I think Dr. Bob was gentle in his reminder to people that this is the way things are. 1776 was a very good year.
Just to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I often choose not to read your posts for various reasons. If you feel defamed by this statement, I suggest you look into the legal recourses you have to act on it. Libel and slander are necessary conditions for defamation.
After reading Dr. Bob's advice, I decided not to read any of your posts for a period of one minute. Actually, I decided not to read anyone else's posts for a period of two minutes. That is my RIGHT.
It is possible that this post has upset you. We both know that it is civil. I have not written anything that could be construed as implicitly or explicitly putting you down or in any way defaming you. Such an interpretation would be yours. It is not mine. I find Dr. Bob's advice to be an important reminder to people that they not read a poster's submissions if they tend to be upset by them.
Shalom.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:25:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-othrscoop » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 15, 2005, at 9:12:53
Friends,
It is written here,[...do you feel defamed by this?(Dr. Hsiung suggesting not to read in the first place)...]and [...look into legal recourses...]
Defamation to a person can occur when one is stigmatised. The stigmatization in most jurisdictions to be illegal is not the type of defamation that I feel, although it could be in very spacific situations.
If one put a sign up in front of a fish store owned by a ,let's say, a Vietnamese person, and the sign said something like,[...remember,it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...], could that be defaming to the Vietnamese shop owner?
But let's go further. Suppose tht sign maker was the Mayor of the town.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:32:23
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:25:34
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...do you feel defamed by this?(Dr. Hsiung suggesting not to read in the first place)...]and [...look into legal recourses...]
> Defamation to a person can occur when one is stigmatised. The stigmatization in most jurisdictions to be illegal is not the type of defamation that I feel, although it could be in very spacific situations.
> If one put a sign up in front of a fish store owned by a ,let's say, a Vietnamese person, and the sign said something like,[...remember,it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...], could that be defaming to the Vietnamese shop owner?
> But let's go further. Suppose tht sign maker was the Mayor of the town.
> Lou
>
Friends,
Now let's get a little deeper.
Suppose in the example above, the sign maker of [...remember, it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...] and then has another sign next to that sign that says something to the effect that [...you could get sick from eating the fish in this store so it could be better for you not to buy in the first place...].
Lou
Posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:39:15
In reply to Lou's apology to the forum, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 22:24:26
Lou,
I would like to hear your answer to Dinah's question. How will YOU change or do things differently in the future if we all agree to go forward?Would you answer that for us?
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:47:23
In reply to Lou, would you please answer Dinah's question? » Lou Pilder, posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:39:15
Jen Star,
You wrote,[...how would you ...do things differntly?...]
Could you list what you would like me to do differently?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 9:52:54
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-do » Jen Star, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:47:23
A related question
How would you run the board better if you could change it? What would be the ideal environment for you?
Ok - it was two questions.
Posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:54:22
In reply to Lou's reply to Jen Star-do » Jen Star, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:47:23
hi Lou,
I'd rather not do that, at this point. First I'd really like to hear your ideas about the posts and whether or not you feel that you'd like to change anything.I feel that if I start telling you what to do, before hearing your ideas and thoughts, that would be too pushy. And I really am interested in hearing YOUR opinions first! :)
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?B, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 9:32:23
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...do you feel defamed by this?(Dr. Hsiung suggesting not to read in the first place)...]and [...look into legal recourses...]
> > Defamation to a person can occur when one is stigmatised. The stigmatization in most jurisdictions to be illegal is not the type of defamation that I feel, although it could be in very spacific situations.
> > If one put a sign up in front of a fish store owned by a ,let's say, a Vietnamese person, and the sign said something like,[...remember,it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...], could that be defaming to the Vietnamese shop owner?
> > But let's go further. Suppose tht sign maker was the Mayor of the town.
> > Lou
> >
> Friends,
> Now let's get a little deeper.
> Suppose in the example above, the sign maker of [...remember, it is your option not to buy fish here in the first place...] and then has another sign next to that sign that says something to the effect that [...you could get sick from eating the fish in this store so it could be better for you not to buy in the first place...].
> Lou
>
Friend,
Now let us go further.
Suppose in the example here that the mayor of the small fishing villiage allows people in the villiage to post their {official doctrins} of their relgious group in the town square that derides, maligns, and defames Vietnamese people, calling them all manner of filth, ect.
Then the Vietnamese fisherman complains to the mayor about the postings in the town square, and the mayor says that he will allow the postings and change the constitution of the town from that one can not post defaming posters in the town square to you can if they are quoting your church affiliation's doctrins by putting up a copy of a page from their list of doctrins.
The Vietnamese happens to be the lone dissenter to this and can not stop the postings that defame him and his family and relatives.
Then many people go to the Mayor and want the Mayor to expell the Vietnamese fisherman from the villiage. Their argument is that it would be better conducive to civic harmony and welfare if the Vietnamese fisherman is expelled from the viliage.
Lou
>
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:06:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jen Star-do » Lou Pilder, posted by Jen Star on July 15, 2005, at 9:54:22
That Dr Bob is not saying "Do not read Lou's posts"
Over the years I have been here, Dr Bob has said that to many, many people, about many many people.
He suggested to me, many moons ago that maybe it would be best if I didn't real x persons posts, and that person wasn't you Lou (infact I believe it was before you even joined PB).
It has been said to someone else regarding my own posts.Lou, this is not about YOU, its about the entire community.
If b finds x persons posts triggery, then maybe it is healthier to b not to read any posts by x.
Surely that is just common sense?
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:27:51
In reply to try to remember..., posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:06:08
Friends,
It is written here,[...DR. Bob is not saying do not read Lou's posts..].
Dr. Hsiung has written,[...sometimes it is more conducive to civic harmony and welfare, just not to reply, {or even (not to read) in the first place}...].
Even when he wrote that what he wrote ,[...did not come out right...], I feel that by his revision that the part,[...(not to read in the first place}...] can still be seen.
I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung delete that part in question because it can still be seen IMO, that there is the potential, IMO, for others to see a suggestion by the authority-moderator-host to the forum that there is the potential for one to be uncivil as a result of reading my posts, since Dr. Hsiung innitiated the statement from a post by another {to me}.
If we carry this further, since I do not put the subject generally in the heading strip, but that my name is seen as the poster, that there is the potnetial, IMO, for Dr. Hsiung's statement to mean to some others that if they see my name, it could be better in some way not to read my post.
The statement,[...not to read in the first place..] has the potential to carry a lot of weight to the community since it is written by the authority -moderator. IMO, there is the great potential for others then, to possibly think that since the moderator is suggesting to [...not to read in the first place...] that others could feel pressure to also [...not read in the first place....]
If there is a doubt that Dr. Hsiung is or is not telling others here that they [...not read..] then I am requesting that the statement in question be deleted.
Lou
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:41:07
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-delet?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:27:51
Would you like him to spend his time going back and deleting the probably hundreds of other times he has said that to others Lou?
This is not about you. This is about a community.
When I was at school (to use an analogy), if two of the kids didn't get on, ofthen the teacher would sit them apart. Or the teacher would suggest that "if you can't get on, simply do not talk to each other".That is how I see this.
Civil harmony is a wonderful thing, and something many of us here would like to see more of. I think it was a very sensible suggestion on Dr Bobs part, as it has been in the past (and no Lou, my life is too busy and stressful at the moment to waste time finding posts for you). I think anything that is conducive to that should be supported.
try and remember there are alot of different people here from alot of different cultures. One way to prevent upset, is to simply avoid the posts by people who upset you.
Out of interest, and I really would like you to answer this - why have you never complained about Dr Bob suggesting this in the past? he has suggested it to me, regarding your posts in the past. Why now?
Unfortunately, I'm not strong enough to do to ignore your posts.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:00:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-delet? » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on July 15, 2005, at 10:41:07
Friends,
It is written here,[...would you like him to spend his(Dr. Hsiung's) time to go back and delete...{100s of times}
I think that if Dr. Hsiung deletes the statement in question here, that that could be sufficiant.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:08:51
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-defam?C, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 10:02:06
Lou - I'm having a problem with your Vietnamese fisherman analogy.
Ok, more than one problem.
First - the analogy seems to imply that your 'mayor' is posting those signs merely because the fish shop owner is Vietnamese. This is, to me at least, a discrimination against him merely because of *who* he is.
I see the next logical thought coming from that analogy that you believe Dr. Bob is saying 'not read' your posts because you are a Jew - meaning *who* you are.
This would make the suggestion about *you* when it is in fact about how *others* react to you. Not the same.
Second - the mayor in your analogy is telling people not to shop there. Dr. Bob only suggested that if a person reacts so strongly to your posts that he can't control himself that an *option* is to not read them.
And as the links I gave you show - it is advice that he has used on multiple occasions, to multiple people having reactions to multiple posters.
I don't see how it can be extended to be against you personally.
And - I'm not trying to say your feelings aren't valid. I'm just trying to show you things that might help mitigate those feelings so you won't feel so bad.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:13:08
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-100s?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:00:02
Dr. Bob doesn't delete posts unless they are made by a person posting while blocked.
I, personally, am very glad of this and would probably not be here if he did delete things.
The worse thing I can imagine would be to have things disappear. On a logical level, I believe that it would create revisionist history, something I abhor.
On an emotional level, to me it would be as disconcerting as being in an earthquake. I would never be able to trust that I am seeing a stable picture.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:28:26
In reply to Re: I see a problem with the logic here » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:08:51
> Lou - I'm having a problem with your Vietnamese fisherman analogy.
>
> Ok, more than one problem.
>
> First - the analogy seems to imply that your 'mayor' is posting those signs merely because the fish shop owner is Vietnamese. This is, to me at least, a discrimination against him merely because of *who* he is.
>
> I see the next logical thought coming from that analogy that you believe Dr. Bob is saying 'not read' your posts because you are a Jew - meaning *who* you are.
>
> This would make the suggestion about *you* when it is in fact about how *others* react to you. Not the same.
>
> Second - the mayor in your analogy is telling people not to shop there. Dr. Bob only suggested that if a person reacts so strongly to your posts that he can't control himself that an *option* is to not read them.
>
> And as the links I gave you show - it is advice that he has used on multiple occasions, to multiple people having reactions to multiple posters.
>
> I don't see how it can be extended to be against you personally.
>
> And - I'm not trying to say your feelings aren't valid. I'm just trying to show you things that might help mitigate those feelings so you won't feel so bad.AAM,
You wrote,[...seems to inply that the "mayor" is posting those signs mearly {because} the fish shop owner is Vietnamese...].
Sorry, but that is not my intention and I do not believe that I wrote that the mayor was posting the signs {because} he was Vietnamese.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:31:34
In reply to Re: Deleting posts » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:13:08
AM,
YOu wrote,[..Dr Bob does not delete posts...]
Sorry, but are there not here many posts deleted here that are not from a blocked poster?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:46:26
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:31:34
> AM,
> YOu wrote,[..Dr Bob does not delete posts...]
> Sorry, but are there not here many posts deleted here that are not from a blocked poster?
> LouAM,
Did not Dr. Hsiung recently delete his own statement about Jean Jacques Rouessau's statement that [...whosoever dares say, Outside the Church is no salvation...driven from...]?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:55:04
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd?B, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 11:46:26
I am not sure which statememt you say he deleted.
Was it the link on the faith board?
It's posts that I don't think he deletes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to AuntieMel-deltfrbd?B » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 15, 2005, at 11:55:04
Am,
You wrote,[...its posts that I do not think he deletes...].
The part that I am requesting to be deleted is what DR. Hsiung wrote ,in part,[...not to ...read in the first place...].
In the faith board post, Dr. Hsiung deleted a part of Jean Jacques Rouesseau's statement that was posted by Dr. Hsiung, not another poster.
But are there not posts by posters also deleted here that are not from those blocked?
Lou
Posted by 10derHeart on July 15, 2005, at 12:34:39
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dele? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 15, 2005, at 12:20:14
Hi Lou,
I'm confused, and I could be totally wrong here. But, as Mel is saying, I also thought what Dr. Bob removed was from the intro to the Faith board page, not anything within an actual post of his. Isn't that right?
I was going to ask for a link to the actual post, if I'm mistaken...but obviously if you are correct and it was deleted you can't do that...but then I think you're saying only "part" was deleted?
I also in the time I've been here (about a year) don't recall Dr. Bob deleting any whole posts - ever - unless made by blocked posters. Only exception would be using asterisks or "____" when posters mention certain things about drugs (specific dosages, etc.), that involve ways to possibly overdose/harm yourself.
Can you describe any situation you recall where he's deleted posts, or portions of posts, from someone who wasn't blocked?
If you can't, I understand. It's time consuming and there are years of history here. Just trying to learn and get clarification :-)
Thanks for reading, Lou.
Go forward in 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.