![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 41. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 9:22:33
DR. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure here and in our dialog here about your policy here that states that [...deputies do not have to intervene...] in the post; http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692047.html, your reply to me was that you think that your policy is reasonable.
I then asked for you if you could write what rational you use as an authority to write that your policy here to allow the deputies to leave statements unsanctioned by not intervening that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum in the post;http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692936.html
If you could reply to me about what your rational is to write here that you think that your policy is reasonable, could you consider the following hypothetical situation in your reply to me?
Let us say that ther is a volunteer fire department and someone calls to report a fire in their house. And let's say that the person that hears the request says that they are unwilling to come to their house to do what they can to put out the fire. The caller then says that if they do not do what they can, then there could be great damage from the fire. The fire department volunteer then says that they have been given a policy that says that they do not have to intervene and that they will leave the fire alone. The caller then says, "But the fire could destroy the house and possibly destroy others also." The volunteer then says to the caller, " I choose not to respond", and hangs up.
I ask;
A. Is what the volunteer did by being unwilling to respond, criminal?
B. Can the volunteer claim that their unwillingness to respond is allowed in their policy, so that by them not responding they are just following their own given policy and are allowed to be unwilling to respond?
C. Since they are volunteers, in your opinion, would it be criminal if they were paid, but not criminal if they were volunteers?
If anyone would like to email to me your discussional aspects if you would not like to post them, I would appreciate that. Also, since 1947, there has been a change in how this situation has been looked at and if you would like to see the historical paralles to that you could email me if you like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 9:50:44
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 9:22:33
hmmmmmmmmmmmm. gg's job (as the others) is a far cry from my job of being a member of the volunteer fire department when i lived in New Mexico, Lou. we were always faced with real emergencies to respond to.(not to say that there aren't real emergencies here at Babble.)
stretch isn't the word i want, but it will have to do............
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 10:18:32
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 9:22:33
Dr. Hsiung,
In looking at your reply to me;
[..Still, I think it's a reasonable policy...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692568.html
I you are going to reply to me concerning my request to you to write in this thread what rational you use as an authority to write that you think that your policy is reasonable, could you consider the following in your reply to me?
Let us suppose that there is a community newspaper and the policy of the owner is that the editors do not have to intervene and that some can have letter reviews by them before they are printed and some they can be unwilling to review before they print it. And let us suppose that there are community residents that put in the editorial page letters that have the potential to foster defamation to those that are of the popular religion and the editors post notes condemning the remarks and that the newspaper does not endorse what was printed.
Then let's say that the newspaper allows a racist letter to be printed and someone calls the editor and asks them to also print that they do not endorse what the letter purports. Then let's say that editor says to the caller that they have been given a policy that says to them that they can be unwilling to intervene and allow the racist letter to stand.
I ask, in your opinion;
A. Could it be criminal for that editor to be unwilling to post an editor's note that they do not endorse the racist letter since the editor posts notes after letters that have the potential to defame those of the popular religion of that community?
B. Could it be criminal for the newspaper to say that they are unwilling to review, or attatch conditions to one for the letter to be reviewed, what someone wants printed in a letter to the editor before they print it if the newspaper has a policy that one can have the letter reviewd before it is printed?
Lou Pilder
Posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 15:00:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 10:18:32
aren't most op-ed pieces and letters to the editor accompanied by a little message, in a box, stating that the piece is not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 17:28:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 9:50:44
> hmmmmmmmmmmmm. gg's job (as the others) is a far cry from my job of being a member of the volunteer fire department when i lived in New Mexico, Lou. we were always faced with real emergencies to respond to.(not to say that there aren't real emergencies here at Babble.)
>
> stretch isn't the word i want, but it will have to do............fayeroe,
In your post to me above, are you saying any of the following?
A.the emergencies here >could< be {real} (or) imaginary?
B.the emergencies here are >always< {real}
C. the emergencies here are considered to be real untill otherwise stated
D. we stretch our imagination to think that a moderator could prevent something that could do damage to another's psychological or emotional state that could be equivalent to the damage done by a fire to the physical state of another's property.
E. something else
F. all of the above
G. none of the above
H. a combination of the above
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 18:32:24
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 17:28:31
> > hmmmmmmmmmmmm. gg's job (as the others) is a far cry from my job of being a member of the volunteer fire department when i lived in New Mexico, Lou. we were always faced with real emergencies to respond to.(not to say that there aren't real emergencies here at Babble.)
> >
> > stretch isn't the word i want, but it will have to do............
>
> fayeroe,
> In your post to me above, are you saying any of the following?
> A.the emergencies here >could< be {real} (or) imaginary?
> B.the emergencies here are >always< {real}
> C. the emergencies here are considered to be real untill otherwise stated
> D. we stretch our imagination to think that a moderator could prevent something that could do damage to another's psychological or emotional state that could be equivalent to the damage done by a fire to the physical state of another's property.
> E. something else
> F. all of the above
> G. none of the above
> H. a combination of the above
> Lou
>D. we stretch our imagination to think that a moderator could prevent something that could do damage to another's psychological or emotional state that could be equivalent to the damage done by a fire to the physical state of another's property.
it is a stretch for me to imagine that anyone could suggest that a volunteer moderator here is as responsible as a volunteer firefighter is and therefore should be "punished" in any kind of a similiar fashion. a poster "chooses" to be here to post and read. whereas a fire threatening a village isn't something that anyone is going to choose.
i am now retiring from this discussion.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 19:34:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fayeroe, posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 18:32:24
Friends,
It is written here,[...a stretch for me to imagine ...a volunteer moderator.. is responsible as a volunteer firefighter...].
The administrative discussion here is about if the rule that Dr. Hsiung has, that a deputy does not have to intercede, has a rational or authority for the rule to be reasonable.
We now have a post here that states that [...it is a stretch for that one poster to imagine that >anyone< could suggest that a volunteer moderator here is as responsible as a volunteer firefighter...a poster chooses to be here...a fire...isn't something...to choose...].
I ask;
A. could not the people living in the villiage also have chosen to live there?
B. If one chose to be in an internet mental-health community that had a policy to provide a safe envoironment so that others could not harm them by defamation and racism, could they also not be entitiled to the same protection of their emotional and psychological state from defamation and racism as the people in the villiage are entitled to protection to their property from fire?
C. If a member has defamation directed to them here, is it because they {chose} to have the defamation directed to them? If not, then could the emotional damage from racism and defamation not be chosen in as much as the physical damage from a fire not be >chosen<?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 20:15:14
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of fayeroe's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 19:34:25
I think that fire burns. I think that reasonable people might agree that fire burns. I think that lots of people could look at a third degree burn on a person emerging from a fire, heck probably even a second degree burn, and say, "Yep, that's a burn allright."
I think that reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes antisemitism, defamation, and/or racism. One might liken it to how easy it is to distinguish a first degree from a second degree, to a third degree burn. It's a continuum of interpretation. One's skin might feel hot, but that might be due to one's unique threshhold for heat sensitivity versus due to a burn as defined by clinical criteria. There might be multiple folks whose condition requires assessment for burns. Triage can be quite an effective and efficient use of resources. Those with unclear or otherwise questionable conditions rightly ought to be directed straight away to those with the knowledge, skills, and authority to diagnose and treat burns.
Finally, I think it might be preferable if any volunteer firefighter who knows he or she is not competent in fighting a particular kind of fire or diagnosing and treating burns defer fighting said fire or assessing said burns to those who are better trained. Otherwise, the fire might get out of control or spread unnecessarily, or a inappropriate and/or potentially damaging actions might be taken when dealing with those with perceived burns.
In other words, I agree with fayeroe.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 20:25:09
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of fayeroe's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 19:34:25
Friends,
It is written here about volunteer moderators of mental-health forums and volunteer firefighters. what is the subject that I have introduced is as to if Dr. Hsiung's policy that says that moderators here do not have to intervene, is a reasonable policy.
There is a test for if something is reasonable or not that is used by many universities and affirmative action departments.
One test is to ask if the policy is {just}. Another test is to ask if the policy is {rational}. Another is to ask if it is {appropriate}. Another is to ask if it is {generally acceptable}.But the most impotant test, is to ask if the policy disregards one's Human Rights.
The Human Rights of people are those that are basic standards without which people can not live in {dignity}. To disregard someone's Human Rights is to treat that person as though he or she were not a human being. To advocate Human Rights is to advocate that the human dignity of {all} people be respected.
I ask you to put any policy to that test.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 20:56:23
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of fayeroe's pos, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 20:25:09
Friends,
I have written here that he most important test to see if a policy is resonable is to see if it disregards someone's Human Rights.
There are tests to see if one's Human Rights are being disregarded in a policy.
One test is to ask if the policy is subject to being arbitrary or caprecious or discriminatory. The policy can be checked to see if de facto discrimnation could arise from the policy. The policy can be checked to see if it could be subject to abuse. The policy could be checked to see if it promotes fairness.
And another important test is to see if the policy could cause harm due to neglect.
I say to any here that if you think that the policy is reasonable, that this is the forum to discuss the policy of the administration here and if you do not want to post here, you could email me if you like.
It is written here something like there is controversy as to what constitutes antisemitism or not.
If you would like to see the posts involved in this discussion that has the potential IMO to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum that I would like to post my response to, by staying within the new rules just made recently here, I could email them to you if you like so that you could make your own determination as to if the statements in question could foster antisemitic feelings.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by sunnydays on October 11, 2006, at 21:33:25
In reply to Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 20:15:14
And I agree with you, gg.
sunnydays
Posted by Jost on October 11, 2006, at 21:37:08
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of fayeroe's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 20:56:23
It's been stated here several times that it's transparently not acceptable to enforce a rule unfairly, by which seems to be meant, that some violations of a rule or norm are sanctioned (to borrow a phrase) and others aren't.
In contrast to this idea, however, there's another: called in law, "prosecutorial discretion."
Prosecutorial discretion-- is the idea that any prosecutor is free to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding which crimes to, well, prosecute.
Lots of factors may come into play. The upshot is that some criminals, for various reasons, are prosecuted, and others, who(may) have committed the same crime aren't.
It's not humanly possible to enforce all laws all the time in a fully consistent way-- the question then becomes, which instances of potential violations of the law are or should be handled by criminal charges (or any other charges or sanctions).
The same principle undoubtedly applies here--
I'd also like to point out that when someone is murdered, for example, it's a rare instance in which it is considered a violation of the person's human rights.
Perhaps in the most troubling instances, a murder or serious assault has been prosecuted, often after the fact of an acquittal when there's a sense of social outrage. In these cases, the murder or assault may be considered also a "hate crime."
However, there are lots of hateful acts, even anti-semitic, or racist acts, that aren't prosecuted because of, well, prosecutorial discretion about the proper use of resources-- and the types of injustice perpetrated in seeking that justice.
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 22:33:55
In reply to Re: Discretion, posted by Jost on October 11, 2006, at 21:37:08
Friends,
It is written her about prosectorial discretion.
There are 100s of limits to this concept, for it is covered extensivly to protect people from arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory conduct by the prosecutor. The prosecutor's descretions are limited.
In (712), selective prosecution is not permitted. In (714) improper motivation is not permitted in the prosecutor's discretion. In (715) disparate treatment is not permitted by the prosecutor. In (716) prosecution in regards to race or religion and vice versa is not permitted by the prosecutor.
In short, prosecutorial discretion in the U.S. is not absolute and is goverend by higher laws including, but not limited to, the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
If you wqwould like to see all of the restraints to prosecutorial discretion, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 22:51:31
In reply to Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 20:15:14
yup, gg......that's what i was saying......in a nutshell.
i always knew that i was saving more than one village. :-)
Posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 23:29:38
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by fayeroe on October 11, 2006, at 22:51:31
Well, it takes so many villages, you see. :)
Good work!
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my! » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 23:29:38
>>One test is to ask if the policy is {just}.
Yes, it is just. It is just for the posters as well as the "moderators"
>>Another test is to ask if the policy is {rational}.
But yes, it is *incredibly* rational. It is protecting the health of the mods as well as the posters. It is not saying a problem would be *ignored*. It is saying tht x and y don't have to deal with it, but that z will.
THATS if there is a problem.>>Another is to ask if it is {appropriate}.
Yes. It is appropriate. For same reasns as stated above.
>>Another is to ask if it is {generally acceptable}.
Yes. It is.
>>But the most impotant test, is to ask if the policy disregards one's Human Rights.
I presume this is meant "does it disregard Lou's Human Rights".
And no, not in any way. If Lou were here for safety reasons (ie, he could physcially not leave here for safety, health, or political reasons), and if Lou were not here by 100% choice, then maybe. But Lou is here by choice ALONE. No other reason. Like the rest of us. Its choice.Its the internet for whatsits sake.. Its the free world. Anything goes.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 7:48:48
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02
Friends,
It is written here,[...Yes,it is just (the policy here that says that deputies do not have to intervene)...]
There is a test to determine if a policy is just or not. Some of the tests are:
A.is the policy free from favoritism?
B is the policy free from a self-interest or bias or deception?
C. does the policy disregard the principles of justice?
D. does the policy conform with justice?
E. does the policy allow unjust accusations to stand?
If you would like to see the posts here that you could use to make your own determinatin as to if the policy in question here is {just} , I could email with you if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 9:22:33
> ...if you could write what rational you use as an authority to write that your policy here to allow the deputies to leave statements unsanctioned by not intervening that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum...
maybe it is because his honest opinion is that the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on this forum.
maybe it is because he would prefer the deputies to do nothing when they are unsure what to do rather than act on impulse and later come to regret what they have done.
maybe because he can't *make* them interveane anways.
> Let us say that ther is a volunteer fire department and someone calls to report a fire in their house. And let's say that the person that hears the request says that they are unwilling to come to their house to do what they can to put out the fire. The caller then says that if they do not do what they can, then there could be great damage from the fire. The fire department volunteer then says that they have been given a policy that says that they do not have to intervene and that they will leave the fire alone. The caller then says, "But the fire could destroy the house and possibly destroy others also." The volunteer then says to the caller, " I choose not to respond", and hangs up.
but then you need to add in the point that the caller calls up the fire department... how many times per week / month / year? and with most of the callouts the volounteers go out to see the house only to say that in their honest opinion there is no fire. it would probably be a full time job to keep up with your requests for determinations and removals and clarifications, Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 8:55:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
Alexandra,
You wrote,[...you need to add,...Lou...]and,[...{maybe}...the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on the forum...]
Well, if {maybe} they do not, then could it also be that {maybe } they could?
If you or anyone else would like to see the posts in question here, you could email me if you like and then you could possibly see some posts that you may not have seen before and perhaps revise your determination as to if the statements in question do or do not have the potential to foster defmation toward Jews and/or me as Jew on the forum.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 9:41:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
to add a bit more to your very good post, in NM if you called in a false alarm you were cited. for your second false alarm, you were fined $500. the third time you called in a false alarm, you were removed as a member of the association and given your membership fee back.when you joined the fire protection society you signed a contract to that effect.
for the rest of us,
there is a story, which i'm sure you've heard, of the boy who cried "wolf" too many times and a deaf ear was turned to his pleas.and for another example from New Mexico, we had a ditch irritagation system (water ran down from the mountains) and we were well aware of "give water an inch and it will take a foot".......when you're irrigating an orchard and three gardens, that is a very good thing and you work it to your advantage. if you were trying to irrigate the entire village, it would be impossible to keep up with.
okay, i'm out of New Mexico examples for this year. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:46:24
In reply to Lou's reply to Alexandra- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 8:55:56
> You wrote,[...you need to add,...Lou...]and,[...{maybe}...the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on the forum...]
uh...
you said:
>> ...if you could write what rational you use as an authority to write that your policy here to allow the deputies to leave statements unsanctioned by not intervening that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum...
and I said:
> maybe it is because his honest opinion is that the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on this forum.
i was trying to say why it might be the case that Bob doesn't sanction those posts. i know that you think that there is the potential... but you see that potential a lot...
How many times do you think volounteer firefighters should go to a callout when the caller is frequent and where most often the volounteer firefighters judge that there is no fire?
Posted by Toph on October 12, 2006, at 10:05:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 9:41:45
For whatever reason your New Mexico examples make me think of "Neil Young", who wisely said,
"And there ain't nothin' like a friend
Who can tell you you're just pissin' in the wind."So to speak.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 10:06:21
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02
Friends,
It is written here,[...It is not saying a problem will be *ignored*. It is saying that x and y don't have to deal with it, but that z will...]
I have read the FAQ regarding the policy in question here and can not find where it says that if z is the owner/moderator here, that he >will< (deal with it) in the same time frame as the deputy as being then and not, let's say, a week or two later.
If the policy does have that in it, that could make a huge difference, but I can not find a statement in that policy that says that z (will) deal with it in the same time frame as the deputy.
This could bring up some aspects of this policy here. For instance, the polcy has a title,[...Why do you have depuuty administrators? What do they do?...]
The function of the deputies is then defined as;
A. they keep an eye on what's going on
B. they intervene by sanctioning in 3 ways
And an impotant aspect IMO of this polcy is that it is stated,[...their actions are subject to review by the owner/moderator {and could be reversed}.
So by the nature of the defining of the functions and procedures of the deputies, it is plainly visible that they can use their discretion, and that if they are wrong, then the owner/moderator could could reverse their sanction.
The function of the deputy administrators is to keep an eye on what's going on and sanction uncivil statements in one of 3 ways as listed in the FAQ. By leaving a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned, there could be that others could have the potential to think that the statements are civil during the time that the deputies are posting without sanctioning the statment in question, yet leaving the statement in question unsanctioned and the owner/moderator is in a place where he does not have consistant internet access that could keep him from posting for a week or more. The time that it could take for z to intercede, if z is the owner/moderator, could be weeks, and then could not z also let the statement stand? I think that this could be prevented by the deputy sanctioning the post on the basis as to if the statement in question has the potential to lead Jews to feel accused or put down as per the past practice where it has already been determined that the statemebnt in question is uncivil. Then letting z reverse the sanction if they are wrong.
If anyone would like to email with me to see the posts in question where the issue as to if they are civil or not had already been determinad in the past practice, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 10:35:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Alexandra-, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:46:24
Friends,
It is written here,[...I was trying to say why it might be the case that (Dr. Hsiung) does not sanction those posts (maybe his opinion is that the statements do not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews.. on the forum)...you think that there is the potential but [>you see that potential a lot<]...].
What determines as to if there is the potential or not here for a statement to lead Jews to feel accused or put down is already defined here and by the past practice.
If anyone would like to see the posts in question and make your own determination as to if the potential is there or not for the statements in question to foster defmation toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum, if they remain unsanctioned, as in the same manner as , let's say, when a member uses the donkey word is sanctioned, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 10:48:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Toph on October 12, 2006, at 10:05:40
> For whatever reason your New Mexico examples make me think of "Neil Young", who wisely said,
> "And there ain't nothin' like a friend
> Who can tell you you're just pissin' in the wind."
>
> So to speak.i've been known to tell friends that a time or two......but never had the response, and honor, of being compared to Neil Young.....thanks, Toph........:-) have been compared to Jerry Jeff Walker though.......:-)
>
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.