![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 14:34:10
In reply to I agree with Racer, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 13:54:27
gg,
I have asked Dr. Hsiung to restore those posts regardless as to how they became going to,[...URL not found...].
And anyway, there are many others that are from that same place that are still there in their original form that have statements that accuse Jews, and insult Jews.
Then there is the discussions ther inthe thread that shows what was there that id=s not there now.
Lou Pilder
I think that the other site has the final ruling on how this has happend and I am awaiting thir email to me.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 14:47:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 13:00:38
Racer,
You wrote,[...ther is nothing...can do..]
I am awaiting to hear from that other site's technical director about this and I am schedualing this through email. So if anyone wants to participate in it, let me know and the emails can be forwarded to you.
Now there is the possibility that the other site has done something on their end to stop the link from going there and I am asking all involved to find out how this is happpening. When I talked to their tech chief, he said that he would never allow those statements to remain posted if he was the owner of this site, but not his site because that is their official doctrins. So this does need to be investigated and I am doing the best that I can now and when my investigatuioon is complete, it will be published.
There are many bloggers now interested in what is happining here. They do ask me about it and I only show them what is plainly visible. So my freedom speech can be done outside this site.
It is a bad break to be expelled when I want to have this cleared up and the posts that accuse Jews and defame Jews to be sanctioned.
Yet today, I consider myself, to be, the luckiest man, on the face of the earth.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 18:46:00
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 14:27:16
> If anyone wants the URLs to these, they cam email me and I will also give you the ones that are still there that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netIsn't sending the URLs in question doing just what you accuse others of doing? "Fostering defamation against Jews?"
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 19:21:31
In reply to Why would you do this? » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 18:46:00
Friends,
As to why I am sending the URLs to the posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that have not been sanctioned, it is because others request them so that they do not have to go through the archives and some do not believe that they exist. If others request them, I will send them to them. The posts are to show that they have not been sanctioned, not so that they could use them to foster antisemitism somewhere else. And was there not a post here that has the potential for some others to think that there could be a dispute as to if the statements in question put down Jews? I am sending those that request them so that they can examine them for themselves and make their own deteermination as to if they put down Jews or not. This is in response to others posting what IMO has the potential for some to think that these posts are not in the archives. And since they are in the archives, the forum has them available, unsanctioned, for them to see with out me sending them at their requests. I am only sending what is already here.
These posts are in other data bases to show that they are not sanctioned, not to promote antisemitism. These posts are in the public domain and anyone can email them to others.
Since they have been posted in their original form in other data bases, the ones that have now are seen as[..URL not found..] raises the questions that we have here now.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 27, 2006, at 19:36:45
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 19:21:31
Bye Bye admin. Not safe here. Too I don't know what to say. This just isn't me. And I still say Lou don't post to me. And would it not be true. That someone can e-mail anything and use any language they want and no one can block them as it's private. So I'd be careful publishing e-mails for the whole World to see. Who knows who may get into your bank account, credit etc. Love Phillipa ps can computers be hacked this way? I'm a computer niave person
Posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
In reply to Lou's reply to gg » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 14:34:10
>
> I think that the other site has the final ruling on how this has happend and I am awaiting thir email to me.Well, I don't see that any "ruling" is necessary, but if you are relying on the accuracy of the technical director from lds.org's statements for your understanding of the matter, you might want to rethink that based on your report of his response. If he did state that no changes to the site have been made that could affect the stability of a URL which links to search results, I believe he's mistaken.
Here is the URL from the post about which you've inquired. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=christ+son+of+god&scripturesearch_button=Search
Below is the URL of the search results I obtained by using the same search terms and the site's scripture search tool. Please note, I inserted a space after "org" in order to avoid posting a link to material that could be considered not civil. The actual URL does not contain that space, and you must remove it in order to access the link.
[xxx]If you compare the two URL's, it's clear that the site has changed the query language for searches. The URL from the babble post does not match the current query language, and thus the "page not found" message is generated.
Perhaps your contact from lds.org did not understand your question. Or perhaps he was not involved in the web site's programming when a change was made to the search tool. But clearly there has been a change.
Please know that there is no conspiracy, and Dr. Bob is not responsible for anyone getting an error message from clicking on a URL linking to another site.
I trust this will settle the matter. No need to thank me, as I benefitted from checking into this myself.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 20:42:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
Friends,
I have examined the aspects of ggs post. All that I know is what I was told by the other site and I have not heard from either Dr. Hsiung or the tech. admin. at the other site. If there is a misunderstanding, that is what I am asking to have cleaerd up.
But if there was a change done by the other site, I was led to believe that there was not,for I spacifically asked if their site could be causing this and was told that it had to be done at the other end. Perhaps he was unknowing of a change. So I am asking to have this cleared up and Dr. Hsiung could confirm what gg has posted here and that could end this investigation.
But even if the other site changed the way it operates, I am asking that the posts be restored to their original form by putting back what has been now led to [...not found...]and a notation from Dr. Hsiung next to those posts that say why they do not lead to what was originally posted. This, I feel, will keep the record intact.
But I am awaiting an answer from the other site and they are 3 hours behind me. I will explain this to him and allow him to comment on it. But then there is the statement that he made to me that he could go to it. I will ask him about it. I think that there could be two sides to this yet.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 20:55:08
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 20:42:54
Friends,
I think that there are still things that need answers here concerning the posts that have a link that leads to ,[...not found...].
Let us assume that there was a change by the other site. I think that if there was a reason for the change, and I think that if there was a change that it is quite likely that the chief tech director would have known about it. And if he did not, then when he found out, if there was a change, would it be reasonable to think that he would have emailed me with that news? And what about the members of that site. Were they told of the change?
I think that I will hold off on making any judgment in this matter until Dr. Hsiung writes his opinion and also after I hear from the tech director of that site.
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 21:36:24
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 20:42:54
> Friends,
> I have examined the aspects of ggs post. All that I know is what I was told by the other site and I have not heard from either Dr. Hsiung or the tech. admin. at the other site. If there is a misunderstanding, that is what I am asking to have cleaerd up.
> But if there was a change done by the other site, I was led to believe that there was not,for I spacifically asked if their site could be causing this and was told that it had to be done at the other end. Perhaps he was unknowing of a change. So I am asking to have this cleared up and Dr. Hsiung could confirm what gg has posted here and that could end this investigation.
> But even if the other site changed the way it operates, I am asking that the posts be restored to their original form by putting back what has been now led to [...not found...]and a notation from Dr. Hsiung next to those posts that say why they do not lead to what was originally posted. This, I feel, will keep the record intact.
> But I am awaiting an answer from the other site and they are 3 hours behind me. I will explain this to him and allow him to comment on it. But then there is the statement that he made to me that he could go to it. I will ask him about it. I think that there could be two sides to this yet.
> LouNo, Lou, there are not two sides to it. There's one issue here: the post in question linked to a search query -- NOT to a webpage. That's what GG posted, and that's the issue.
Personally, I would like to thank GG for going to the trouble of looking into this. She didn't have to do that, and yet she did. Thank you, GG. Some of us do appreciate what you do here.
As for the person you emailed at lds.org, it sounds to me as though he did not understand your question. Did you tell him you were looking for an URL? Or did you tell him you were looking for the results of a query? Those are two very different things.
As for having Dr Bob make a change to the original post, that's not likely to happen. You know why I say that? Because Dr Bob has made it clear, repeatedly, to many posters, that what is posted here stays posted. If you post something you regret -- well, you chose to post it, you live with having it out there for all to see. He will not change it. He's made that clear. In this case, I can't see any reason to believe he would change his mind about that and make a change to the post. NO, it would not be a case of making a change to go back to what it was -- there are lots of outdated links on this site. That's the nature of the beast. Things on the World Wide Web change. Pages are deleted. Whole websites are deleted. It happens.
And asking that Dr Bob make those changes because you want them made, Lou, is asking for special treatment. Why should you receive special treatment, when others do not? Don't you say you want to be treated the way others are? That you don't want to be singled out? This is the flip side of that coin, Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:03:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of gg's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 21:36:24
Friends,
I am asking that the parts that are now missing, due to any reason, be restored. This is so that the record could be intact.
GG has said that she could not post the link because it is uncivil?
That is why I am asking that the posts be restored. I am not asking for it to be changed from the original, but restored to the original.
And after thinking about this, I still think that there are two sides to this and that I can not make a judgment untill I hear both sides.
I do not know what happened and I am attempting to find out. If this happened by itself, I still am asking for the record to be restored to its original. I would not object to anyone here also asking that something be restored to its original. For the record is changed now and I think that restoring is not changeing, but correcting the record to its original.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 22:12:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:03:47
The post contains the same content and text it always has. What a URL links to is not part of the "record" of a Babble post.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of gg's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 21:36:24
Friends,
It is written here [...that Dr. Hsiung has made clear that what is posted stays...].
If that is true,that is why I am asking for the record to be restored to its original. For if Dr. Hsiung has said that, then what was posted is gone, it did not stay. That is why I am asking for the restoration of all posts to their original, to meet what Racer has written as to what she believes to be Dr. Hsiung's expectations for what is posted to stay.
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:03:47
> That is why I am asking that the posts be restored. I am not asking for it to be changed from the original, but restored to the original.
>But here's the thing, Lou: You're NOT asking that the original be restored. Nothing has changed in the original post. The original post is exactly as it was.
What has changed is the way searches are done on the site linked to. The other site has changed its search function. Therefore, the old search no longer works.
As a result of the change to the other site, the site that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Bob or Babble, the link in the original post which used the old search format no longer works. The post has not changed. It's still as written, whenever that was. It is the original post, in its original form.
What you're asking for is to have the post changed, to reflect the change made to the other site.
Maybe it will happen. But I just want to make sure you're aware of what you're asking for. You are asking for a change to be made, not for any "restoration" of the original post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:24:19
In reply to The record has not changed, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 22:12:39
Friends,
It is written,[...what a URL links to is not part of the record...]
I remember a discussion that Dr. Hsiung wrote that a link is part of being directly to the text. And in our discussion he said that the second click from the first link was different.
In this case, the poster offered a link. That, according to my memory was said by Dr. Hsiung to be linked directly to the text and could not contain uncivil content. I also remember that gg wrote that something in a link would have to be civil.
I think that if something is {directly to the text}, that it is part of the text and that restoration to its original is restoring the text in its completness.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
In reply to No, you're not asking for that... » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
Friends,
It is written,[...the original post is exactly as it was..].
That is not the way that I see it. I remember the original post that linked to statements. These statements are according to Dr. Hsiung, directly to the text.
When the link then led to ,[...URL not found...], I think that that is different from the original and I would like the original as it was posted to be restored to show the record intact.
When you look at the post with out the link, there are discussions about what was in the link. Now that the link is gone, the discussions can not be connected to the missing statements. If the post was restored, then the discussion could be seen as to its relationship to what was in the link. Without the link, the post is incomplete. Restoring the link makes the post complete. I am asking that the posts return to there complete context so that one can see what is there.
In those posts, there are many statements that accuse the Jews of killing Christ and other statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I would like to hear from both sides of the links to find out for myself what has caused this and make no judgment untill then as to what could be the thing to do in this case. Maybe the links will reappear all by themselves?
But there are many other posts that have defaming statements about Jews that still are there when you click on the link. If anyone would want those I could email them to you at your request.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 8:57:52
In reply to No, you're not asking for that... » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
If you click on the link, you do get a 'not found' message.
But you also land on a page of the 'host' site, with a space to do a search.
If you type in the original search criteria (which can be determined by the original URL) you will get the same results - but with a different URL.
Conclusion: They changed their search function.
They probably said they didn't because they didn't realize the original was over a year old.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:37:30
In reply to Re: You are right, Racer » Racer, posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 8:57:52
Friends,
It iswritten,[..they probably changed it...the post was a year old..]
This is one of the aspects IMO of this. You see, even if it is changed now, it was there for a year? And was there not the potential for indoctrination to occur because the statements that the Jews killed Christ were left unsanctioned for that time and people could have the ppotential to think that since Dr. Hsiung writes that he does in his thinking what will be good for the community as a whole, that it is good for the community as a whole to leave those statements unsanctioned and then could there not be the potential that others could think that those statements are civil and suppportive on this forum by the nature that they are not sanctioned and that DR. Hsiung has posted that one match can start a forest fire, but this match was not put out by sanctioning the statement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 9:43:27
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
> But there are many other posts that have defaming statements about Jews that still are there when you click on the link. If anyone would want those I could email them to you at your request.
Are you then providing here an email link to posts that you question the civility of?
Do the links contained within these posts contain biblical passages that you find objectionable?
- Scott
Posted by sunnydays on August 28, 2006, at 9:55:38
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
Why do you want to restore to the original anything that could arouse antiSemitic feelings? If it's gone, isn't that better, as now no one will be influenced by the content on that site?
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Racer's post » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 9:43:27
Friends,
It is written her,[..the email..posts..]
The posts here are a matter of public concern and go to the public's interest and can be emailed. They are plainly visible here and if those that want me to send them to them, I am only sending what is already here to see to save them time to search.
Let us keep in mind that we can not post some URLs on the board, but anyone can email the URLs here to anyone, for it is stated here that the URL of a particular blog can not be posted here, but it could be in the babble mail or in an email.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:06:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Racer's post » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on August 28, 2006, at 9:55:38
Friends,
It is written here,[..why do you want those posts that have statements that could arrouse antisemitic feelings to be restored..?]
I am asking that they be restored so that they then can have a post from Dr. Hsiung that says that they are uncivil and not supportive.
You see, if those posts are a year old, others could have seen them at their innitial appearing and could have the potential to think that since they were not sanctioned that they were civil and supportive. Those people may not go back to those posts a year after they saw them. But if a post by Dr.Hsiung is posted now, would it not come up on the main board? And there are posts that are still in their original form that accuse Jews that have not been sanctioned That is what I am asking for. In your opinion, is that asking too much?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:41:13
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
Friends,
It is written her[..a bible verse?..]
I think that those that are interested in this might be suprised at the answetr to this. Those that are interested can email me for those and if you do not want your email to me to be known, others have opened a Yahoo email account and used that to email me to retain anonimity.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 11:26:57
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
> Friends,
> It is written her,[..the email..posts..]
> The posts here are a matter of public concern and go to the public's interest and can be emailed. They are plainly visible here and if those that want me to send them to them, I am only sending what is already here to see to save them time to search.
> Let us keep in mind that we can not post some URLs on the board, but anyone can email the URLs here to anyone, for it is stated here that the URL of a particular blog can not be posted here, but it could be in the babble mail or in an email.
> Lou PilderJust be careful that you don't get blocked...
- Scott
Posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:41:13
> Those that are interested can email me for those and if you do not want your email to me to be known, others have opened a Yahoo email account and used that to email me to retain anonimity.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netI guess I just don't understand why you won't just use babblemail? Why should anyone else have to go to the trouble of setting up an anonymous email account, just to find out what you have to say? There's already an anonymous feature set up here on this site. Why not just use it?
While I might be interested in hearing the rest of what you have to say, I'm certainly not interested in going to all that trouble, just because you choose not to use Babblemail.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 14:40:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
Babblemail is subject to the civility rules.
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.