![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:07:38
Dr. Hsiung,
I have found a way to restore the posts in question but I would like to know if it could be acceptable to use the following to show the original post.
There has been given here a method to use the search page to bring back the original.
So what I would like to do is to
A. Reply to the post in question and have it appear along with my post.
B. Title my post something like,{...Restoration of missing statements to {...[...]...}
C. Then I have the new URL there that leads to what was not found.
So this way, it is moot as to how the links went to {URL not found} for then there would be the new URL to have the restored post. If I could be allowed to do this, then this discussion concerning that could be irrelevant.
Now this is a request to you for me to be allowed to do this because I do not know how the new rules may prohibit, or allow such.
If a deputy could give their opinion on me being allowed, or not, according to the new rules, that could go to a discussion about that untill you write as to I can or can not post to those posts with the restored link.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:59:38
In reply to Lou solves post restoration-Request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:07:38
DR. Hsiung,
If I am allowed to post the restored statements, then I could reply to them in detail.I was wondering if I could use someone to post after 3 posts so as to have my perspective included, without waiting, as of what those statements purport?
I think that this way could be good for the community as a whole, for there could be a balance of perspectives shown then.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 20:37:02
In reply to Lou solves post restoration-ramifications, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:59:38
Er... Just to check what you want to do.
You think there have been posts that defamed Jews.
Those posts have 'gone missing'.
You think you can restore them.
You want to restore them (to post them on the boards).If you feel offended by the posts then why do you want them on the boards?
Why aren't you just happy that they aren't on the boards anymore?
> I was wondering if I could use someone to post after 3 posts so as to have my perspective included, without waiting, as of what those statements purport?
I think that is kind of not in the spirit of the three post rule. I figure that the idea of the three post rule is that if people have posted three posts then they do have to wait to say anymore. That way other people get a chance to say something. That way if other people don't have anything to add then that first person has to stop.
You want to tell us about how you think these statements defame Jews?
> I think that this way could be good for the community as a whole, for there could be a balance of perspectives shown then.
I think the idea of the three post rule is to ensure that there are a balance of perspectives.
Is this really what is going on?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 20:51:25
In reply to Re: Lou solves post restoration-ramifications, posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 20:37:02
Friends,
It is written here,[...a balance of perspectives...].
My perspective to some of the posts is not there because in some of those, I was blocked from responding to them when they could be seen. Now since some of those statements in question are not able to be seen now,and I am able to respond to them now, restoring them would allow them to be seen and then I could have the opportunity to respond to what is seen now from my perspective.
Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 20:55:40
In reply to Re: Lou solves post restoration-ramifications, posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 20:37:02
Friends,
If you would like, I could email you one example of the type of post in question at your request, for discussion purposes here.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 21:31:50
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Estella's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 20:51:25
> since some of those statements in question are not able to be seen now,and I am able to respond to them now
Are they in the archives? If they are then you can respond to them. I respond to posts from the archives sometimes. My post will show up on the current boards and people can follow the link that is automatically generated at the top of my post to see what I'm responding too.
> restoring them would allow them to be seen and then I could have the opportunity to respond to what is seen now from my perspective.
Were they deleted from the boards? If they were then maybe it was because the person was posting while blocked or because the posts were considered grossly offensive.
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 21:57:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Estella's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 21:31:50
Friends,
It is written,[...were they deleted...?]
The posts are there.
Lou
Posted by Estella on August 31, 2006, at 23:07:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Estella's post-del?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 21:57:36
If they are in the archives you can respond to them same as you can respond to posts that aren't in the archives.
Your posts will show up on the current boards.
Posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 4:50:49
In reply to Lou solves post restoration-Request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:07:38
Would your plan of restoration keep the posts on their original board or moved to Adm. board or where the posts originally on the Adm. board?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 6:18:37
In reply to Re: Lou solves post restoration » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 4:50:49
Friends,
It is written,[...original board or adnmin board..?]
Both.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 6:32:29
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 6:18:37
Friends,
It is written,[...original board or admin...?].
Both boards sometimes have the same post. The restoration of the post could be seen on the board the post was originally made. Some of the posts also had discussions on the admin board and the restoration could be seen there also.
But I am awaiting a decision as to if the discussion could continue due to the new rules here that could have an effect on the discussion continueing on the admin board.
On the original board, I will be posting the point of view from my perspective and others could still respond there.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 9:46:07
In reply to Re: Lou solves post restoration » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 4:50:49
Thank you for responding.
I just want to understand better: if a URL posted within a post to Adm. - like in the past - could be brought back up for (very specifically) a request of being ruled on by Dr. Bob ? That was permitted for quite a while and is no longer, so there are a large number out there archived on the Adm. board. Now, the ruling process is by directly emailing as opposed to posting publically on Adm. with the specific URL cited within a post. Allowing archived posts that contain URL's could circumvent the new process even if it's not for ruling determinations.
I would like to know what Adm. thinks of that idea too.
Posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 10:05:44
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 9:46:07
As a brief aside:
Lou, you challenge me to think about things deeper than I usually do and I actually like that. I admit I can feel irritated by stuff at times but the fact you enlist in me an ability to look at things differently and challenge my own thoughts is something that I wanted you to know was good for me.
Posted by Estella on September 1, 2006, at 12:59:55
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 10:05:44
You can respond to posts that are archived. If you literally do respond to them then people can follow a link from your post to the post you are responding to. So you don't need to repost posts from the archives. You can simply respond to them.
If you are requesting determination... Then the board regulations are that you request determination by emailing dr bob and that you don't request determination by posting to admin. If you simply want to respond to posts that are already archived then my bet would be that you should simply respond to them on the board that they were originally posted on.
Remember... If you are wanting determinations on the acceptability of the posts then you need to email dr bob for that. If you are simply wanting to respond then you can. I fail to see why you want to duplicate the posts. If you respond to them then people can follow a link from your post to the original post that you are responding to - if they choose to do so.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 15:54:56
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 10:05:44
Glydin,
You wrote,[...I actually like that...you enlist in me...look at things differently...good for me...].
Could you write what you see then, as pertaining to this administrative discussion, what it is that you now look at differently?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 16:33:17
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Estella on September 1, 2006, at 12:59:55
Friends,
To clarify,
A. I am not seeking determinatins for the posts in question.
B. As to any duplication, there are some posts that are on the admin. board also. If I restore the post to its original, then the discussion on the admin board could continue, but what about the new rule then? Could the post be discussed because it was there before the new rule was made? (grandfathering)
These are the questions that I have for clarifying the rule and its possible exceptions to it.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 17:48:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Glydin-lokatdif, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 15:54:56
I prefaced my post as an aside as that is what it was. It was not of particular reference to the question at hand. I was actually, while it is not an Adm. topic, trying to give you a compliment as you have helped me try to put into practice a thought to: Seek first to understand and then be understood. My views don't necessarily change due to exploration, however, trying to understand how others COULD have different views and seeing those reasons is a valuable skill for me. I am trying to work on that as I would like to find that more often in others.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2006, at 21:02:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply -lokatdif » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on September 1, 2006, at 17:48:13
Glydin,
Thank you for the compliment. It is refreshing to have someone tell me that I have helped them.
I look forward to any future discussions that we may have.
Lou
Posted by Racer on September 2, 2006, at 19:20:27
In reply to Lou's offer, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 20:55:40
> Friends,
> If you would like, I could email you one example of the type of post in question at your request, for discussion purposes here.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netLou, I wonder about your repeated "offers" of information via email. Are you forwarding these emails anywhere? Are you forwarding these emails to anyone? Are you collecting these email addresses to report them to anyone or any organization? Are you including the email addresses of posters here with any information you're using in your apparent crusade against this site?
WHY are you so intent on avoiding babblemail, and getting actual email addresses from other posters for correspondence?
I guess I'll say it outright: While I would be interested to see what you are offering to send, I will not use regular email with you, because I would be afraid that you would pass this information along to others. I would be afraid that you would forward my emails, or pass on my email address to others.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 19:57:23
In reply to Just out of curiousity » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 2, 2006, at 19:20:27
Racer,
You wrote,[...Lou,...your ..crusade against this site...].
I am sorry if anyone thinks that I have a crusade against this site.
Let it be known that I am not against this site. I am only in my understanding here on the administrative board because it is designated as the place to have discussions {about this site}.
The reason for me requesting that we email is that there are new rules here about posting URLs that I do not understand as to how they apply and as to what the excptions are to the new rules. I am asking for the administration to clarify the new rules and give whatever exceptions there might be to those rules. In particular, if I can post a URL to restore a post. So untill the aspects of the new rules are gone over, I do not know what I can or can not post. Being in email means that any discussion in the emails is outside of the board's rules. And has AuntieMel has commented on babblemail in relation to this discussion?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 20:05:23
In reply to Just out of curiousity » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 2, 2006, at 19:20:27
Racer,
You wrote,[...I will not use regular email with you...].
I have received very many emails that use a Yahoo address. This is one option, but there is another for those that do not want to open an account with them.
I have received emails from people that say that they are emailing me for someone else. So, perhaps one can have someone else email me and they will forward my reply to others?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 20:51:55
In reply to Just out of curiousity » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on September 2, 2006, at 19:20:27
Racer,
You wrote,[...are you collecting email addresses...].
I am not collecting email addresses and I have had many members email me about other things not pertaining to this discussion, from the board about prescribed psychotropic drugs. These discussions are wonderfull to have and allow us both to freely talk about the topics concerning such. I am glad to help others that email me with questions that they think I may be of some help to them.
It would be the seame in this discussion. I am only trying to help others here.
Lou
Posted by Estella on September 2, 2006, at 20:53:15
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer-C » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 20:51:55
(((lou)))
Posted by linkadge on September 3, 2006, at 7:17:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer-C, posted by Estella on September 2, 2006, at 20:53:15
What on earth is going on here?
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on September 3, 2006, at 8:27:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer-C, posted by linkadge on September 3, 2006, at 7:17:18
> What on earth is going on here?
Welcome.
- Scott
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.