![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:03:50
In reply to Lou's reply to muffled- » muffled, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 7:23:00
> muffled,
> You wrote,[...it make me very sad and hurt..people will express themselves..its a free world so they may speak..]
> The concept of {freedom of speech}is IMO important to a free society. But do not in your opinion people give a high credibility to what is spoken by teachers, and in particular teachers at a university? And in your opinion, do not others give a high credibility to what is written by a psychiatrist?
> DR. Hsiung writes in his FAQ to ask the members to trust him, that what he does in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
> If you would like to see the historical parallels in regards to Dr. Hsiung's statement about {...will be good for the community as a whole..], you could email me if you like at
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> Lou
>
>
**Lou, you kinda lost me a bit on the previous post. But if i did get it right. Then you have ALREADY repudiated those posts well. You have dozens of posts here on admin., which will also be archived which repudiated those posts.
You have done your work.
Well, I dunno how others think....thats one of my probs I think. But I myself just see people as people. Just cuz Bob has a Doctorate means squat to me. Judging by some of what I have observed of him, he's bout as human as the next guy. As human as me. And I have very little education.
I have been educated by my own life.
So Bob may have some clevernessess of his own, but so do I.
He is no better or worse than I.
I must say, as administrator of this site I frequent, I DO wonder who Bob is, and what his motives are....
But I don't give a rats *ss really what he thinks bout my religion. (IMO, he not got much use for it!!!!LOL!!!)
I am secure in love of my God, and that He will prevail in the end. As I'm sure others feel secure with their God. And I am ok w/that.
So I hope you can chill out some Lou.
Kick back and just have some fun.
I have encountered no antisemitism where I live.....
So I dunno what else to say,
Except be well,
Muffled
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 13:28:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to muffled- » Lou Pilder, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:03:50
muffled,
You wrote,[...if I did get it right (your posts in this thread that are asking that DR. Hsiung post a repudiation in the thread where statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings), then you have already repudiated those posts.
If I have your post right, are you saying that a repudiation to a post by me is equivalent to a repudiation to a statement by Dr. Hsiung? If so, I would like for you to know that what I am requesting here is;
A.That DR. Hsiung post in the thread where there is a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and he has let it stand, to write that the statement is uncivil.
B. That the poster >not< be sanctioned
C. That the policy of Dr. Hsiung that the deputies do not have to intervene be taken out of the FAQ in his rule here
D. That the 3 consecutive post rule be also taken out of the FAQ here.
E. That I be allowed to use the {report this post} feature here for those that I have requested to him what his thibking was in regards to statements being acceptable or not to those posters that I have asked for three other posts to be determined by him, and he had said that in his thinking that they were acceptable.
F. other good and just requests
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 13:53:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to muffled- » Lou Pilder, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 11:03:50
muffled,
You wrote,[...Lou...you have done your work...]
My work is an effort here to have the administration write that posts that have statements unsanctioned, that have been used throughout the centuries to arrouse antisemitic feelings, to be sanctioned as being uncivil,so as to be in support of those that value religious freedom. For is not religious freedom protected, and not threatened, by the enforcement of the rules equally here that sanction statements that could lead one to feel accused or put down?
If you would like to see these posts, you could email me if you like.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:39:57
In reply to Lou's reply to muffled- » muffled, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 13:53:21
> muffled,
> You wrote,[...Lou...you have done your work...]
> My work is an effort here to have the administration write that posts that have statements unsanctioned, that have been used throughout the centuries to arrouse antisemitic feelings, to be sanctioned as being uncivil,so as to be in support of those that value religious freedom. For is not religious freedom protected, and not threatened, by the enforcement of the rules equally here that sanction statements that could lead one to feel accused or put down?***Well my cold and unkind response to that would be that:
-this is Bobs site. He has all the power, and all the rights over this site....it is Bobs site.
-Lifes not fair. Never has been fair, never will be fair. Some cultural group will always be oppressed. There will NEVER be world harmony. Never has been. Never will be.
-So I just try to be as kind to my fellow man as I am able to be, in my fallible human way...
So I admire you trying to be fair, but I REALLY don't think your gonna change Bobs mind by steadily beating at him. I sense that Bob can be stubborn as a mule. However, MAYBE you'll outstubborn him!!! LOL!
Who knows...Take care lou,
Muffled
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:57:35
In reply to Lou's reply to muffled- » muffled, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 13:28:05
If so, I would like for you to know that what I am requesting here is;
> A.That DR. Hsiung post in the thread where there is a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and he has let it stand, to write that the statement is uncivil.***NOT likely to EVER happen...
> B. That the poster >not< be sanctioned
***Huh?
> C. That the policy of Dr. Hsiung that the deputies do not have to intervene be taken out of the FAQ in his rule here
***This is Bobs site.
> D. That the 3 consecutive post rule be also taken out of the FAQ here.
***This is Bobs site. And he has let pass when you have done 3 consecutive posts hasn't he?
> E. That I be allowed to use the {report this post} feature here for those that I have requested to him what his thibking was in regards to statements being acceptable or not to those posters that I have asked for three other posts to be determined by him, and he had said that in his thinking that they were acceptable.
***I think you CAN report a post, you just may not get an answer....or....you may not like the answer....BUT...this is Bobs site.
> F. other good and just requests
***You can request anything you want.
You just may or may not get an answer.
You may or may not like the answer should you get one.
And if a person goes on too long about something, then another stubborn person is likely to just dig their heels in more.....thats the way I am!!!
Muffled
Posted by Lou PIlder on October 23, 2006, at 17:13:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to muffled- » Lou Pilder, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 15:39:57
muffled,
Please do not post to me.
Lou
Posted by Jost on October 23, 2006, at 18:17:01
In reply to Lou's reply to muffled- » muffled, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2006, at 13:28:05
Lou, in reading your posts, I'm led to wonder what price you'd find proper so as to insure that your requests would be met?
Put otherwise, what would you think was the right trade-off, if it were necessary, so as to assure the fulfillment of those requests?
ie, what if Bob would have to close down or greatly limit activity on this site, if he were to fully satisfy your requests?
Or again: what if Bob, with limited time to devote to the running of this site, were to go through archives and note his opposition to various posts, and also consider your concerns, day by day, as you list them:
and what if, that would make it impossible for him oversee the site, in general, if he took it upon himself?
Would that seem to you to be the right course of action?
How much would you find it correct for him to curtail the site, in order to rectify the situations that disturbs you?
I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'd like to know your reasoning in the matter.
Jost
Posted by Toph on October 23, 2006, at 20:20:27
In reply to Lou's request for muffled to please not post to me » muffled, posted by Lou PIlder on October 23, 2006, at 17:13:36
Posted by Lou PIlder on October 23, 2006, at 20:46:19
In reply to Re: Lou's requests, posted by Jost on October 23, 2006, at 18:17:01
Josh,
You wrote,[...I..wonder..what would..what if..how much..I'd like to know...].
Well, if I stated my plan for remediation, I think that some,if not all, of your questions could be answered. You see, there are about 40 posts here that are in question. Of those that have emailed me for them to see, some ask me to stop at 2, for they write that they have seen the seriousness of the situation, some at 5 , some at 17 before they have said that they have seen what I have said that they will see for themselves.
What I would like is that each of those have a colored symbol after the heading and after each uncivil statement that was not sanctioned as uncivil, and that members would know that it stands for that the statement in question is uncivil, like the symbol used to indicate a new-member symbol. I suggest that red be the color or orange. Another symbol could be a hand with the palm open, like as to indicate to halt. I think that this could be accomplished by appointing a special moderator. The special moderator could take the posts that I send to them, forward them to Dr. Hsiung, he examines the posts, emails back the ones that he says that he wants to stand, and the special moderator does the mechanics to have the symbol show in the subject line and the statement in question that Dr. Hsiung considers to be uncivil in relation to the guidlines of the forum as to that there is the potential for the statements to lead Jews and others that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom to feel accused or put down, or to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.
Lou
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 20:52:07
In reply to Re: please post to us anytime- muffled (nm), posted by Toph on October 23, 2006, at 20:20:27
LOL! thanks Toph.
I'm fine :-)
Muffled
Posted by SatinDoll on October 23, 2006, at 20:57:29
In reply to Re: please post to us anytime- muffled » Toph, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 20:52:07
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 22:30:39
In reply to Lou's request for muffled to please not post to me » muffled, posted by Lou PIlder on October 23, 2006, at 17:13:36
> muffled,
> Please do not post to me.
> LouThanks for following the steps in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
I've been thinking:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/696737.html
and I'd like to try something new. You can request that Muffled not post to you, but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, so I think I'd prefer not to enforce this unless you feel harassed and it's necessary as a last resort. If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, by babblemail or email, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this.
Since this is a new procedure, I'm also interested in questions, comments, and suggestions regarding it.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 23:23:48
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 22:30:39
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:50:23
In reply to Enforce? In what way???? (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on October 23, 2006, at 23:23:48
Posted by muffled on October 24, 2006, at 0:21:53
In reply to Re: by blocking you if you do post to him again... (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 23:50:23
" but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open,"
**HUH? So why this? I feel lab rattish.......
Muffled
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2006, at 6:45:25
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 22:30:39
> > muffled,
> > Please do not post to me.
> > Lou
>
> Thanks for following the steps in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> I've been thinking:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/696737.html
>
> and I'd like to try something new. You can request that Muffled not post to you, but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, so I think I'd prefer not to enforce this unless you feel harassed and it's necessary as a last resort. If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, by babblemail or email, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this.
>
> Since this is a new procedure, I'm also interested in questions, comments, and suggestions regarding it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In reply to your invitation to discuss your new policy concerning using your feature to request that another (please do not to post to me}, you could ask for that the requestor send to you ;
A. If you {feel} harassed, could you let me know what it is as to {why you >feel<} that you want the other member to please not post to them
B. What steps have already been taken by the requestor
I think that your rule here is that if someone {feels}harassed, that that is the criteria to be used by the requestor to use what IMO is a {privilege} to invoke here your rule at the requestor's descretion. I also think that if you want to require that those that use that privilege to tell you {why} they want to exercise that privilege, could that not constitute a relationship that could be considerd to be a practice of psychiatry?
Lou Pilder
Posted by mike lynch on October 24, 2006, at 11:58:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to muffled-unsancdefam, posted by muffled on October 22, 2006, at 23:26:58
> > muffled,
> > I guess that the overiding aspect of the post that you would like to be simplified is that I am requesting that the faith forum be closed because I think that it would be good for the community as a whole IMO to close it because there are posts IMO that have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as Jew on the forum, and others that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom, that are being allowed to stand unsanctioned.
> > Lou
>
> **Thank you Lou.
> I am of the Christian faith.
> There's plent about my faiths doctrines etc. that bother me greatly. And yet i do strongly and fully beleive in my God.
> That being said, I have no right to make ANY judgement over anothers faith. Each mans faith is his own thing.
> Yes, there are things on the faith board that i am not happy about.
> I dunno what religion Bob is, but i would bet its NOT Christian!!!LOL! But thats HIS business not mine.
> Religions have disagreed thru the centurys. They still do. And proly will always.
> So at this time anyways I tend to stay away from the faith board, cuz yes, to me it DOES feel somewhat tainted. But that is just MY feelings. I speak for noone but myself.
\I'm just curious, how come when were talking about religion, an argument of "it will happen no matter what" is given, but any other hurtful gestures are strictly forbidden and enforced by the pbc policy, but this *doesen't* include defaming religions?. It seems VERY inconsistent.
So we can't post ANYTHING that may cause people to feel hurt, except if were defaming other peoples religions?
What you say is true in your post, but if bob isn't giving infractions for what goes on in the religion board, then that is inconsistent
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 20:07:05
In reply to Re: by blocking you if you do post to him again... » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on October 24, 2006, at 0:21:53
> > but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open
>
> HUH? So why this? I feel lab rattish.......Sorry, I'd rather they stayed open, but under certain circumstances, I think it may be better if they don't. Does that make any sense?
Bob
Posted by verne on October 25, 2006, at 4:56:42
In reply to Re: by blocking you if you do post to him again..., posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 20:07:05
I'm sorry if you're hurt, but I don't think what you're saying makes any sense Dr. Bob.
By the way, I looked all over the place and can't find Alex K's post that resulted in a "9 week block". If the block refers to her post about cheating with the ads, I took her post as COMPLETELY hypothethical.
I'm afraid to say anything anymore.
Verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2006, at 6:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to muffled-unsancdefam, posted by mike lynch on October 24, 2006, at 11:58:19
Friends,
It is written here,[...if (Dr. Hsiung) is not giving infractions..on the religion (Faith) board..that is >inconsistant<...].
I ask myself;
A. Could the word,{inconsistant} be equivalent to {incongruous} as used here in this post?
The word {inconsistant} could mean;
1.incongruous
2.contradictory
3.unequal
4.other related definitions
The word,{incongruous} could mean,{inharmonious}
This could lead to that the statement by mike in question here, could mean,[...if (Dr. Hsiung) is not giving infractions..on the religion (Faith) board..that is {inharmonious}...].
Now is not one of the principles that governs the acceptability of the mission of the forum is that it is >civil<? And is not to be civil is to in some way have {harmony}?
Thearfore, could it be that what mike wrote could be,[...if {DR Hsiung)is not giving infractions..on the religion (Faith) board..that is not |civil|...?]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2006, at 7:47:26
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of mike's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2006, at 6:52:40
Friends,
In this discussion, I would like to revisit a post by me here in this thread in order to tie in mike's post with some of the aspects of this discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697018.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 18, 2006, at 3:07:10
In reply to Lou's reply to DR. Hsiung-psychrelatnshp? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2006, at 6:45:25
> if you want to require that those that use that privilege to tell you {why} they want to exercise that privilege, could that not constitute a relationship that could be considerd to be a practice of psychiatry?
I don't think so.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 2:10:34
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2006, at 22:30:39
> I'd like to try something new. You can request that Muffled not post to you, but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, so I think I'd prefer not to enforce this unless you feel harassed and it's necessary as a last resort. If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, by babblemail or email, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this.
>
> Since this is a new procedure, I'm also interested in questions, comments, and suggestions regarding it.OK, let's make this official. I've updated the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by sunnydays on January 21, 2007, at 10:38:48
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 2:10:34
> > I'd like to try something new. You can request that Muffled not post to you, but I'd rather lines of communication stayed open, so I think I'd prefer not to enforce this unless you feel harassed and it's necessary as a last resort. If you do feel harassed and see this a last resort, could you let me know, by babblemail or email, what it is that makes you feel that way and what steps you've already taken to address this? Then I'll post something if I'm going to enforce this.
> >
> > Since this is a new procedure, I'm also interested in questions, comments, and suggestions regarding it.
>
> OK, let's make this official. I've updated the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobThat's fine with me, but a follow-up question. Are all previous PDNPs now not in effect? If anyone has requested one in the past, do they now need to go through this process?
Figured those were the inevitable next questions for you...
sunnydays
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 12:09:30
In reply to Re: requests not to be posted to » Dr. Bob, posted by sunnydays on January 21, 2007, at 10:38:48
> Are all previous PDNPs now not in effect? If anyone has requested one in the past, do they now need to go through this process?
That's a good question, we could start over now. Not completely, but we could ask that previous PDPs be "renewed" starting with step 3. Maybe that would reopen some lines of communication?
Bob
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.