![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
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 The restoration of the post could be seen on the board the post was originally made.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
Posted by llrrrpp on September 3, 2006, at 11:00:41
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer-C » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 20:51:55
Hi Lou,
I'm glad that you are offering to help others, and that you are open to receiving private correspondence seeking help from you. I think that is a wonderful thing.I also think that it's a gift that you could share with the rest of Babble. If you read and respond to posts on other boards, you can have the opportunity to help many people, not just those in the thread, but those that lurk on the WWW, or who come across your post in a few months' time.
What is preventing you from making more regular posts and using babblemail? In a sense, why bother with Psycho-Babble if you do not use its features?
One of the reasons I banned myself from the Admin page, specifically from replying to your posts in the month of August, is that the Admin board is not a place where we can reasonably give or expect support. To me it's the most dangerous and anxious place on Babble.
I accept Babble as a flawed system. It's flawed because it's operated by humans, it's flawed becuase it's used by humans, and it's never going to obey any kind of law or logic like an ideal system will. There will be exceptions and fuzziness and moral faux-pas and mistakes. And sometimes the mistakes get corrected, and sometimes they don't. But for me, the rest of the Babble experience is far more positive than the mistakes are disheartening.
Participation is a choice.
-ll
Posted by crazy teresa on September 4, 2006, at 13:03:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer-C, posted by linkadge on September 3, 2006, at 7:17:18
Posted by Declan on September 5, 2006, at 19:46:29
In reply to Excellent question! (nm) » linkadge, posted by crazy teresa on September 4, 2006, at 13:03:02
People are young and healthy?
Too much Ritalin?
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:36:27
In reply to Lou solves post restoration-Request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 19:07:38
> I have found a way to restore the posts in question but I would like to know if it could be acceptable
Would your post link to something that wouldn't be considered acceptable? If so, then it wouldn't be considered acceptable, either...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2006, at 7:37:26
In reply to Re: Request, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:36:27
Dr. Hsiung,
In regards to restoring posts, the restoration would indeed be of the part that you have determined to be uncivil recently on the administrative board.
So thearfore, as to who posts the restored part, that part would be uncivil.
I am suggesting the following then:
A. That those posts in question have a post in the thread from you that says that what is missing, is uncivil.
B. That I could post the inclusion of the Jewish perspective to what is missing and others could use my email address so those that would want to see what is missing could referr to it.
C. That each of my posts go to you for approval or editing before I post them.
D. That I be allowed to use another member to post after I post 3 consecutive posts strictly to have only 3 consecutive posts, or waive the rule for this cause.
E. Or, for you to create a new symbol, such as a red indicator, that means caution, that what was in the posts is no longer there and is uncivil.
F. Other good and just suggeations.
What do you think?
Lou Pilder
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.