![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2006, at 17:36:56
Dr. Hsiung,
This is my reminder that I had requested to you if I could email you the URL to the Anti-Defamation League's response to the accusation made to the Jews for you to approve or not before I posted it. Would this be OK, for I have not seen a reply from you concerning this.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:23:31
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2006, at 17:36:56
> This is my reminder that I had requested to you if I could email you the URL to the Anti-Defamation League's response to the accusation made to the Jews for you to approve or not before I posted it.
Thanks for asking for it to be reviewed before posting it, I appreciate that. But could you ask if someone else would be willing to do that? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2006, at 19:17:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 17:23:31
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote to my request for you to determine if a link to a position by the ADL concerning the accusation made to the Jews that is in question here is acceptable or not,[...could you ask someone else...?].
Could you tell me who the someone else could be that could have the authority to approve or disapprove the post?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:51:45
In reply to Lou's reply toDr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2006, at 19:17:50
> Could you tell me who the someone else could be that could have the authority to approve or disapprove the post?
I wasn't thinking someone with authority, in order to obtain approval, just someone who's been around for a while, for an independent perspective. You know, two heads are better than one.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 13:34:46
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2006, at 21:51:45
DR. Hsiung,
In my request to you for you to determine before I post a URL from the Anti-Defamation league as to their position relevant to the accusations made toward the Jews that are posted here, your reply to me was to ask someone else.
But in your FAQ, you have a link that you use by another poster that explains things not to do and that one can always email you to find out if something is OK.
I ask;
A. have you changed your policy concrning members emailing you to find out if something is OK?
B. does your policy exclude requests from me and if so, could you post here why?
C. does your policy exclude just requests from me that could have the potential to be a repudiation of statements that have the potential IMO of arrousing antisemitic feelings?
D. are you not aware of the link that you have in your FAQ and if it is there you will change it to delete the part about that one can email you to see if something is OK?
Lou Pilder
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 11:28:11
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2006, at 17:36:56
Could one not post an acceptable quotation from the site, identify the site and allow the reader to find it on his own?
For example
According to the ADL
"Crucifixion, the particular method used to execute Jesus, is forbidden by Jewish law. "
When a quotation is entered into google it will find the site without the necessity for it to be posted here.
I appreciate Bob's decision not allow direct links to sites he finds offensive. But I think sourcing material is also necessary to further his stated objective of education.
According to the ADL home page the best way to combat hate speech on the internet is by speaking the truth. Maybe just posts stating the truth rather than refuting someone else's errors?
> This is my reminder that I had requested to you if I could email you the URL to the Anti-Defamation League's response to the accusation made to the Jews for you to approve or not before I posted it. Would this be OK, for I have not seen a reply from you concerning this.
> Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 13:45:33
In reply to URLs unnecessary in age of Google??, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 11:28:11
Friends,
It is written here,[...not allow ..links (of Dr. Hsiung's disapproval)...sourcing materials..necessary(URLs)...for the objective to educate...].
If you are considering to contribute to this thread, I would like to keep in focus that ;
A. I am requesting that DR. Hsiung voir dire the URL in question for acceptability or not, before I post it or not.
B. That Dr. Hsiung has in his FAQ a URL offered from a member that says that one can send something to Dr. Hsiung to see if it is OK.
C. That there are new rules about what URLs can or can not be posted.
D. other good and just issues here.
If you would like to see the posts that I am referring to and how the URL from the ADL could be used to show the Jewish perspective from the ADL in regards to the accusations posted here toward the Jews that I would like to post a response to, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 16:08:43
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-sormat?, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 13:45:33
Lou are you asking me to stay out of your thread? I think at this point that is something Bob would prefer we not do. I have posted asking for a clarification below. Perhaps you would like to offer Bob your input. Threads going off topic might be a problem Bob would like to address. But you know Bob and rules. He might then decide to limit the number of threads containing similiar topics etc etc etc. I kind of think the fewer rules and restrictions the better.
I will stay off the thread if that is what you want as a favour to you but I believe my issue WAS good and just. I am not sure why you posted what you did in response to my post.
I believe I presented a solution to the problem. If you choose not to use that solution it's fine with me.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 17:23:07
In reply to My issue IS good and just » Lou Pilder, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 16:08:43
zazenducky,
You wrote,[...are you asking me to stay out of your thread?...]
No
You wrote,[...I believe that my issue was good and just...
I do not believe that I wrote that any issue of yours was not, but could you write what issue you are referring to?
You wrote,[...I will stay off...if that is what you want..].
That is not what I want
You wrote,[...a solution to the problem...].
I innitiated the thread to request from Dr. Hsiung that he scrutinize the URL from the ADl for the truth as to be civil to be posted here. In this issue, he has written that I ask someone else. But does not his FAQ have him offering a link from another member that states that Dr. Hsiung will tell you if it is Ok if you ask him?
If that is so, the concern that I have here now in regards to the thread in question is to get an Ok from Dr. Hsiung before I post the URL.
I am requesting this because of the new rules here about URLs .
I want to post my response to statements that have IMO the potential to be considered to be accusative to Jews and have the potential to lead jews to feel put down.
I do appreciate your post in regards to your suggested alternative to posting the URL that I would like to post. But my thinking agrees with yours, in that posting educational material is a part of the mission of the forum.
Lou
Posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:51:22
In reply to Lou's reply to zazenducky » zazenducky, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 17:23:07
Thanks for clearing that up:)
I was just thinking of how to get your information out and you were asking about the rules. Sorry.
I don't think anybody but Bob can answer your question about the rules and the FAQ. At least I know I can't. So I'll bow out again.
Good Luck :)
Posted by gardenergirl on October 8, 2006, at 18:19:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:51:22
> Thanks for clearing that up:)
>
> I was just thinking of how to get your information out and you were asking about the rules. Sorry.I think you offered a practical and useful option.
>
> I don't think anybody but Bob can answer your question about the rules and the FAQ.I certainly can't speak for Dr. Bob either. But I suspect that since he's already answered Lou's question (asking him to ask someone else) he's probably not likely to go into it further.
Of course, I may be wrong.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2006, at 22:13:28
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 13:34:46
> your reply to me was to ask someone else.
> But in your FAQ, you have a link that you use by another poster that explains things not to do and that one can always email you to find out if something is OK.How about if you ask someone else, see what they say, and then ask me again? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:04:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2006, at 22:13:28
DR. Hsiung,
I requested to you that you scrutinize a URL that I would send you for determining if it could be OK to post as per your FAQ.
Your reply to me was to [...ask someone else...] which I asked who could have the same authority as you to determine if the URL was OK to post and your reply now is that,[..{how about} if I ask someone before I send it to you...].
Now this brings up if you are saying any of the follwing?
A. There are two standards here. Other members here can just send a proposed post for consideration to me to find out if it is OK to post, but the standard for >you< is to first send it to someone else before you can send it to me.
B. You really do not have to send it to someone else before you could send it to me
C. There is a >higher standard of performance< here to those that ask you to determine if it is OK to post a URL that could have the potential to show that posts here that are let to stand without sanction, that have the potential in the requestor's opinion, to foster defamation toward Jews and/or the requestor as a Jew here, and want to post a response to those posts, by requiering that those requests be first reviewed by another member.
D. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by sunnydays on October 9, 2006, at 7:33:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou (3) » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:04:08
Maybe he's just busy and has been getting a lot of emails. I don't think he has a different standard for you. You just might get a faster response by asking someone else. If you're worried about them not having the authority, maybe you could ask several someone elses.
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 17:40:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou (3) » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on October 9, 2006, at 7:33:05
Friends,
It is written here,[...I don't think he has a different standard for {you}...you might get a faster response by asking someone else...them not having the authority, maybe you could ask several...]].
I ask:
A. By what criteria could anyone use to think one way or the other that he has a different standard for me or not? If you could state the criteria that could be used to determine if he has a different standard for me or not, I would appreciate that.
B. How could I get a {faster response by asking someone else?
C. How could asking several members tell me if the post is OK or not in Dr. Hsiung's thinking?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 6:59:30
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of sunnydays' post-wthw?, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 17:40:18
> B. How could I get a {faster response by asking someone else?
well... someone else might respond more quickly than dr bob is responding at present...
> C. How could asking several members tell me if the post is OK or not in Dr. Hsiung's thinking?
i think he might be trying to encourage you to care about other peoples thought processes on civility too...
some people seem to fairly much agree with bob's judgements about civility and incivility (e.g., the deputies) thus asking someone else who seems to typically agree with bobs judgements might actually be a pretty good substitute for waiting... and waiting... and waiting... for bob to respond...
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 7:15:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnydays' post-w » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 6:59:30
Friends,
It is written here,[...it might be trying to encourage you to care about other people's thought processes...]
The FAQ has a link offerd by DR. Hsiung from another member that writes something like that you can >always< email Dr. Hsiung if you think that {you are not sure}that the post is OK.
I feel that I am an >equal< member here and if others can email DR. Hsiung, that I could be provided the same status here without an additional standard {for me} than others.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 7:40:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Alexandra's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 7:15:25
Friends,
It is written here,[...might be trying to encourage you to care about other people's thought processes...].
My thinking, and how I feel, about adding additional requirements for me to do what others could do according to the policy here in the FAQ without the additional requirement to me, is that to subject me to a higher standard than the other members by having another condition to me than others is not IMO >supportive< nor do I consider it to be >civil.<
I am proud of being in a nation that has a tradition to uphold the freedoms that the country established to promote fairness and respect among our people by having equal opportunity for all. I feel that any rule in a mental-health community that could have the potential to undermine the principle of equality, by imposing an additional requirement to one member, is not IMO supportive to the freedoms established that have kept our country going forward and I honor the role played by Dr. Martin Luther King jr for his life given to promote equality, and I honor the role of all God's children that would not submit to any additional requirement to them than to others.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 8:05:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of sunnydays' post-w » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 6:59:30
Friends,
It is written here,[...he might be trying to encourage you {to care} about other people's thought processes...].
My friends, if you think that the statement in question above insinuates that I am not a caring person here because I am asking for equality in regards to the FAQ policy here, then I ask;
A. By what authority or rational could you think of that could justify anyone to think that one does >not care< about other people's thought processes because they ask for equal treatment?
B. Why would I need to know about what others think as to if I can have equal treatment in reagrds to the FAQ policy here?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:35:00
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of alexandr' post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 8:05:15
> My friends, if you think that the statement in question above insinuates that I am not a caring person herethat isn't what i meant.
i think he was *requesting* that you ask someone else rather than *requiring* that you ask someone else.
he didn't tell you to stop emailing him - did he?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 11:24:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of alexandr' post » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:35:00
ALexandra_k,
You wrote,[...that isn't what I meant...]
Thank you for clarifying what you wrote. I appreciate that.
You asked me,[...he didn't tell you to stop emailing him-did he?...]
Let us review a little here before I answer that here.
My original request to Dr. Hsiung was for him to review my post before I was to post it so that I could find out if it was OK before I posted it. This is in the TOS here as that in his FAQ one could always do that.
His reply to me was;
[...could you ask if someone else is willing to do that?...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin20060918/msgs/688767.html
Then I asked insome way if the TOS here excluded me from the FAQ that says that one can >always< email him to find out if a post is OK.
His reply to me then was;
[...How about {if you ask someone else, see what they say, and then ask me again?...]
My concern here is if this is a condition to me that is not a condition to others and I am awaiting a reply from DR. Hsiung about that.
If it is a requirerment to me that I am to {ask someone else first} before I {can} ask him again, then is that not saying to me that there is a condition to me before I can email him, for his statement to me says [...{how about if you ask someone else {and then} ask me again?...]
As to if this is a request or a requirement, I will answer that in another post.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693190.html
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 11:57:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Alexandra's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 7:40:12
It is written here:
"My thinking, and how I feel, about adding additional requirements for me to do what others could do according to the policy here in the FAQ without the additional requirement to me..."
I believe what was offered was a suggestion, not a requirement.
If you want to know what Bob is likely to think, you have the option, if you so desire, to ask other people, esp. those who tend to be good predictors of Bob's judgments, what they think Bob would think.
That's not a requirement.
Plus the suggestion has been made to others; it's not limited to you.
Jost
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:04:37
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of alexandr' post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 8:05:15
It is written:
"if you think that the statement in question above insinuates that I am not a caring person here because I am asking for equality... But what authority...could you think"
The statement you refer to here may suggest that some people (including perhaps Dr. Bob) may (may, since this is conjectural) worry that you don't sufficiently understand the feelings of others.
The reasons for the belief that you don't understand feelings of others is not given. I see nothing in the statement that implies that your asking for equality is the basis, or is at all connected to it.
It is also written:
"Why would I need to know about what others think as to if I can have equal treatment"
Part of the answer is that in order to know if you're being treated equally, you need to know how others feel they're being treated-- otherwise how can you know if there is any equality in the experience of the treatment here?
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:52
In reply to Lou's reply to Alexandra_k » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 11:24:02
Alexandra-k,
The question is if Dr. Hsiung is saying that he is requesting or requireing me to ask someone else before I ask him to say if my proposed post is Ok?
Let us look at another aspect to what I am saying here.
In the following post by Dr. Hsiung in the same thread , he replies to me to ask someone else {for an independant perspective}
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/688881.html
Let us look at this post from me to him in the same thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692103.html
In the above post, there are the questions of my concerns, A-D that I am awaiting a reply from him.
He has replied to me twice the same type of reply in regards to me asking someone else {and then} ask him.
I think that there is the potential IMO to think that he is putting a condition in front of me, but not others, before he will tell me if the proposed post is Ok, for he writes, >{and then}< [ask me {again}], yet the FAQ has no condition, for it says that one can >always< send the proposed post ot him to find out if it is OK. Now >always< means that there is that understanding.
A question now IMO is that could a reasonable person have the potential to think that DR. Hsiung is denying me the equal opportunity of the terms of service here, as defined in his FAQ, by writing to me to ask someone else {and then} send it to him.
There is a test to determine if his asking me that, constitutes discrimination. There is also a test to determine if the dialog by him to me in the thread in question constitutes harassment based upon the repeated statements by him to me to do the same thing, before my concerns to him are replied to such as the ones,[...A-D...] in the post cited here, for I feel that if he could reply to those, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
In {C}. I ask if the policy excludes requests from me for to find out if a post is OK before I submit it, that could be a post from me addressing statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. For his reply to me, to {ask someone else} that could have the potential to cause me, if I have to ask someone else first, to find others that could have a knowlege of that spacific concept.
But the FAQ writes that DR. Hsiung knows it when it can be seen. And others could know it when it is seen also. Which menas that {I} could know it when it could be seen. And if I think it can be seen, then I am asking Dr. Hsiung if he sees it, not if others see it. For I know of others that see it without asking them, and they have published librarys about it.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 13:05:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Alexandra's post-, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 11:57:39
Friends,
It is written here,[...I believe..a {suggeation} not a {requirement}...suggestion made to others..not limited to you...].
The statement to me by Dr. Hsiung to [...ask others for an independant perspective...] was made to me in reply to my request to him to review a URL from the Anti-Defamnation League that is their response to the posts here that have statements that accuse Jews and IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. This is my request and not a request from others here. My request is for him to tell me if he will allow it to be posted as being OK or not. If DR. Hsiung wants to make his determination on the basis of what some others think, that is one thuing. But is not asking me to do that another thing?
Dr. Hsiung's reply is to me is,[...how about you {ask others} and {then} ask me again...]. The TOS in the FAQ indicates to me that Dr. Hsiung has in his policy that [...one can >always< ask me to find out if a post is OK...].
As to if he is saying that he will not allow me to have him tell me if the post is OK before I ask others their perpective, is what is the question here. There are those that think he is making a suggestion. But if someone thinks something, that does not absolutly mean that what they think is {fact}, does it?
There is a test to determine if an administrator's statement to someone is a request or a requirment. This went to many State Supreme courts and the answer may surprise some.
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.