![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 34. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on November 10, 2006, at 21:37:39
Thank you for posting notations of: "I have nothing further to say at this time" to reminders posted on the board on subjects that have not been specifically (to that time as some are repeats) addressed.
I had taken an attitude that things that did not receive commentary from you actually were the commentary, however, I think to actually post something is a better way to go and makes things clearer for all of us who participate in this community.
Posted by notfred on November 11, 2006, at 0:43:05
In reply to To: Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on November 10, 2006, at 21:37:39
Just because one asked the same question a different way does not mean it needs a new answer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 6:35:10
In reply to To: Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on November 10, 2006, at 21:37:39
> Thank you for posting notations of: "I have nothing further to say at this time" to reminders posted on the board on subjects that have not been specifically (to that time as some are repeats) addressed.
>
> I had taken an attitude that things that did not receive commentary from you actually were the commentary, however, I think to actually post something is a better way to go and makes things clearer for all of us who participate in this community.
>
Friends,
In looking at the above post here, it is written to Dr. Hsiung,[...Thank you..I had taken the attitude that things that did not receive commentary..were the commentary...to..post something..makes things clearer...].What was one part of my requests, about Dr. Hsiung's rules and policys here, in question as to what Dr. Hsiung posted in reply to my request for him to clarify what he wrote here in regards to my requests to him, was something like,[..I have nothing to add at this time...].
In the reminder that I posted for Dr. Hsiung to reply to me, I had requested for him to clear up the uncertainty that I have in regards to his rules and policy here for me and others being allowed to submit posts in advance to him for a determination of acceptability without an added condition that I, or I guess others also, ask another here first for them , I guess, to give their opinion. This condition is not expressed in the FAQ, for that writes that one can always ask Dr. Hsiung or a deputy if a post is OK without the additional condition requested that Dr. Hsiung has posted to me.
I would like to participate here , but I would like to do so within the rules here. in order for me to be within the rules here, I would like to know what they are as to in this case, the submitting of a post in advance to see if it is OK and if I must have a member give me their opinion or not before I can do that.
Since the FAQ says that one can always submit a post to Dr. Hsiung or a deputy in advance to see if it is OK and with Dr. Hsiung asking me to have another give me their opinion first, that leaves me with a want for clarification as to if it is a requierment to me to have someone review it first before I have Dr. hsiung review it in advance, or not.
The post in important to me to have reviewd in advance because it is a link that is a response from the Anti-Defamation League as to the Jewish perspective as to statements here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and have the potential IMO to foster defamation toward Jews and me here if the statements in question are not addressed by the administration as being uncivil as in the same fashion and manner as other posts here that are addressed as uncivil that accuse, put down or are not sensitive to the feelings of others. For a list of posts that have the potential IMO to arouse ill-will toward me here, you could email me if you like.
Dr. Hsiung has made new rules here about posting links and the administrative board is his invitation here to address policy and rules for clarification of them, and I am asking for the clarification because it is unclear to me as to if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request to me to ask someone else first before I send him the link in question in advance to see if it is OK or not to post it so that I can stay within the rules here.
The poster that innitiated this thread writes,[...to post something makes it clearer...] I agree that to post a yes or a no to a question that I have to clear up to me if one can or can not send a post in advance to Dr. Hsiung without having to have to send it first to another is IMO a resaonable request about the policy maker's statement to me about his statement to me about asking another first. The poster also wrote something like that if there was no commentary from DR. Hsiung to requests to him about his administrative policy here, that things that did not receive commentary were the commentary, but also wrote that to post something makes things clearer.
There could be many interpretations to what the poster and to what Dr. Hsiung has posted to me here could mean. I ask;
A. Does Dr. Hsiung's reply to me mean that my question, as to if I have the condition to me to ask another first before he will review a post of mine in advance to determine if it is OK or not, is answerd with a yes or a no? If so, Do I have to ask someone first or not and what as to what he wrote substantuates a conclusion to that?
B. Does it mean that he has not determined yet as to if I can or can not send him the post in advance, and he will post an answer to me at a later time? If so, what could be a substantiation of that conclusion?
C. Does it mean that he is saying that what he has already posted about his policy is all I need to determine if I need to ask someone else first or not in order to have him review the link in advance that I would like to post? If so, could clarification be given here as to the two statements by Dr. Hsiung;
1. In the FAQ,[..one can always send to Dr. Hsiung or a deputy in advance...]
2. In Dr. Hsiung's statement to me,[...could you ask someone else first before sending it to me?...]makes it clear that I can or can not send the post in advance to have Dr. Hsiung OK it or not? If so, what is the rational for any conclusion arrived at?
D. other interpretations
Lou
Posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 6:45:53
In reply to Re: To: Dr. Bob, posted by notfred on November 11, 2006, at 0:43:05
> Just because one asked the same question a different way does not mean it needs a new answer.
~~~ and there was no new answer - just one that was more clear to me than silence.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 7:27:10
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 6:35:10
Friends,
I would like to have the post in question from me to Dr. Hsiung here for clarification purposes.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699244.html
My question to DR. Hsiung was a reply to him posting that,[...will respond to questions about if a post is uncivil by posting in the thread or replying directly...]
My reply to him is a request for clarification from me of what he has posted. The situation involves posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me because I would like those posts in question tht are not noted as uncivil,to have a notation added to them in the thread that they appear that they are uncivil, and my requests to DR. Hsiung and the deputies have not resulted in a post by them in the thread in question or resulted in a reply to me with the answer to my question which is generally as to if the post is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum. For a list of these you could email me if you like.
Part (E) is one aspect of the policy and rules here that I am uncertain about as to if I can or can not send a post by me in advance or not without any additional conditions to me.
This is important to me to clear up what I feel is uncertian as to if I can or if I can not submit a post to DR. Hsiung in advance, and could also,IMO, be important to the entire community.
I would like to post here within the rules and there is another request from me for clarifiction to Dr. Hsiung in response to his post in (D) that I also would like to have clarification to , for I am uncertain as to if I can have someone use the report feature here {in my behalf}. If I,and others, could do this, then could not the 3 rule be circumvented. Yet DR. Hsiung writes that {...others can ask...}.
If I am able to do this, then those posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or have the potential for some others to think that they are personal attacks against me, or could foster defamation toward me IMO when they are not notated as being uncivil by the administartion,and I can not use the {reprt this post } feature because of the 3 rule, I could have someone in my behalf use the {report this post} feature for me.
I ask;
A. Is my question as to if I can have someone in my behalf use the report feature answerd as to if I can or can not? (And what is used to make the conclusion)
B. If I can do this, I am asking anyone to email me with your willingness to ask in my behalf
C. Keep in mind that there are statements from DR. Hsiung that could IMO make it unclear, and it is unclear to me, as to if one can do this or not. One statement by him say "No" to a poster that askes to share their(3) requests to others. Another statement by DR. Hsiung says that anyone can email him.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 8:24:31
In reply to Re Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 7:27:10
Friends,
It is written her,[..no new answer...]
The clarification that I am seeking is due to the new rules here for links, for posting historical parallels of state-sponsored antisemitism, and the statement by Dr. Hsiung ,[...will respond by posting in the thread or replying directly...]. It is the posts that I have requested that the administration either post in the thread or reply to me directly, that niether has been done at this time that I am referring to. The 3 rule and the link rule are of paramount importance for me to post a response to those posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelingsand are not nnotated as uncivil.
These posts I am asking to have to either post in the thread that they are uncivil, or to reply to me directly with an answer to my question, which is generally as to if they consider them to be civil or not. In those posts, I am asking, now, if there is another way in addition to those ways for the posts that have neither been addressed in the post or been replied to me directly with an answer to my question.
In (F), I ask for a deputy of my choice to receive the posts in question from me and post in the thread where they appear that the statement in question is not civil. And in (G),I ask if there is another way for me to have those posts in question addresed as being uncivil. And if not, then are those posts, IMO, that have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me,is Dr. Hsiung saying that they will not revisit them and they will be allowed to stand?
I ask,
A. Does DR. Hsiung's reply to me,[...I have nothing to add at this time...] say that he is allowing uncivil statements here about Jews and me to stand?
B. In considering DR. Hsiung's past posts, that he has posted that accusations toward the Jews are not civil, does his answer here,[...I have nothing to add at this time...] not be reasonable for me to have a want for clarification to find out if since he writes that [...will post in the thread or reply directly...] mean that since there are posts that accuse Jews here that are not noted in the post directly to be uncivil or that there is a direct reply to my question as to if the administration considers the statements civil or not, that those two statements could mean that Dr. Hsiung or a deputy could have a new procedure to honor my requests to notate in the thread where those posts in question apppear that the statements are uncivl or to reply to me directly?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 8:31:19
In reply to Re Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 8:24:31
> [...I have nothing to add at this time...]I take that to mean Dr. Bob is taking no further action at this time.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 9:14:49
In reply to Re: » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 8:31:19
Friends,
It is written here,[...take this to mean that (Dr Hsiung) will take no..action now...]
Well, that is written here by the innitiator of this thread to be their interpretation of Dr. Hsiung's reply to me,[...I have nothing to add at this time...].
In my request for clarification to Dr. Hsiung, there were requests to give me an understanding as to my uncertainty as to what his rules and policy here entails, such as is he rescinding his request for me to ask another about a post that I would like determined in advance to be OK or not. Also, if I , or others, could have someone in their behalf use the report feature which could have the potential, IMO, to circumvent his rule of 3.
I would like to post within the rules here and I see that one interpretation of DR. Hsiung's reply to me is that it means [...no further action now...].
I ask,
A. Does the interpretation by the innitiator of this thread mean, if that is what DR. Hsiung means in his reply to me, that my requests for clarification are answered? If so, then;
1.Is the answer that I can or can not send the post in advance? If so, what is the rational for that conclusion?
2.Is the answer that I can have someone use the report feature {in my behalf} to be that I can or can not? If so, what is the rational for such?
B. Does the interpretaion, if it is what DR. Hsiung also means, say that posts that have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings or IMO to foster defamation toward me by the nature of them being uncivil and not being notated as uncivil, that it is civil to leave them unaddressed if they are uncivil?
C. If the interpretation by the innitiator is the same as DR. Hsiung's meaning, then is leaving statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to foster defamation toward me by the nature of them being left without them notated as being uncivil, supportive?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 10:32:40
In reply to To: Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on November 10, 2006, at 21:37:39
> Thank you for posting notations of: "I have nothing further to say at this time" to reminders posted on the board on subjects that have not been specifically (to that time as some are repeats) addressed.
>
> I had taken an attitude that things that did not receive commentary from you actually were the commentary, however, I think to actually post something is a better way to go and makes things clearer for all of us who participate in this community.
>
Friends,
It is written above to Dr. Hsiung,[...Thank you for posting ..{I have nothing further to say at this time}...]
There could be many interpretations as to what the poster meant by the {Thank you}.
Could it mean any of the following?
A. The poster is thanking Dr. Hsiung for instead of not replying at all, to reply with that he is not now going to give a reply?
B. The poster is thanking Dr. Hsiung for not replying now to spacific requests that he has previously not replied to?
C. The poster is thanking Dr. Hsiung for not replying now to clear up any uncertianty to as to if myself,and others could have someone in their behalf use the report feature which could circumvent the 3 rule.
D. The poster is thanking Dr. Hsiung for not replying now to clear up any uncertainty to as if his new rules for links and posting historical paralles to state-sponsored antisemitism can allow a poster to submit the post in advance for approval, without a condition that they ask someone else about it {first}?
E. The poster is thanking Dr. Hsiung for not replying now for other reasons not specified.
Lou
Posted by Jost on November 11, 2006, at 10:57:48
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 10:32:40
Lou, Bob seems to think he has answered your questions as far as he can.
I"ve noticed that in some posts, you ask for questions to be answered. Often these answers could be yes/no answers.
In other posts, you ask not only that the questions be answered, but also that rationales for the yes or the no be given.
My questions to you are:
1.has Bob ever answered your "yes/no" questions (even if other people asked the same question and the other person was answered)--
if so, what were his answers?
2. has Bob given any rationales, in the past, about why the answers are yes or no?
If so, could you say what the rationales are?3. If Bob hasn't given rationales, do you have any idea what his rationale could be? ie. can you imagine what he might think-- or what logic or reason he might be applying, even if he hasn't stated one, or stated one fully enough to satisfy all your questions?
If so, what were your ideas about his rationales?
thanks, Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 13:40:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-, posted by Jost on November 11, 2006, at 10:57:48
Friends,
It is written here,[...do you have any idea of what his (Dr. Hsiung's) rationale {could} be?..can you {imagine} what he >might< think or what logic or reason he might be applying?...].
I think that it is more civil and supportive for rules, in particular in a mental-health community, to be well-defined and applied equally so that one does not need to use their imagination to post within the rules. There is an invitation from Dr. Hsiung to ask him about his rules and policy here on the administrative board.
In my requests about administrative policy and rules, it is because I am uncertian as to how the rule or policy is defined and would like to have a clearer understanding of his rules and policy here. I welcome other's thinking about what they think the rule or policy entails and so if you know the answers to the questions that I have asked Dr. Hsiung, I would appreciate it if you could post what you know to be the answer to my questions to Dr. Hsiung in; http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs699244.html. If you could also state your rational for knowing the answer, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
I agree with Dr. Hsiung that the forum's goals are for support and education and would like to facilitate support by offering support {from my perspective} here. In order for the support that I would like to offer {from my perspective} here, I am asking to have clarification of the rules and policy here to do that. There are new rules made that I am uncertain as to what they entail that could impact my ability to offer support from my perspective.
In (G) of my request, Dr Hsiung has posted that the administration will respond either in the thread or to me with an answer to my question. I am asking what another way could be if the deputies or Dr. Hsiung do not reply in either way to posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to foster defamation toward me by the nature that those posts of that nature are left unaddressed on the board and the administration does not reply to me with an answer to my question which is usually asking if their thinking is if the statement in question is civil or not.
In most of the posts in question, that answer was given in 1947 and I am proud to be part of a country that has gone forward from then and honored those determinations in their laws. The advances that have come out form that determination has catapulted society here to one that other countries are emulating in their laws. The work of Dr. Martin Luther King jr. has inspired a nation to go forward , away from before the past practice of state-sponsored discrimination. The work of the Anti-Defamation League has gone hand-in hand with laws to support minority equality and to have their voice heard that condemns statements that accuse Jews or has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.
There are countless others that want to go forward from 1947. I am proud to be one of them and would like for the rules and policy here to be made clearer to me so that I can post here within the rules and offer support and education from my perspective.
Lou
Posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 14:39:18
In reply to Re: » Lou Pilder, posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 8:31:19
I don't follow all the concerns you bring to this board but I've followed enough of the trend - over several years - to come to the conclusion that I believe you are receiving answers, posted on this board, to your queries. The issue, as it appears to me, is receiving anwers that don't meet your expectations.
Again, to my original post, I am appreciative for the the info that Dr. Bob has nothing further to add - in particular, when a previously addressed topic is brought up.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:06:45
In reply to Observation, posted by Glydin on November 11, 2006, at 14:39:18
> I don't follow all the concerns you bring to this board but I've followed enough of the trend - over several years - to come to the conclusion that I believe you are receiving answers, posted on this board, to your queries. The issue, as it appears to me, is receiving anwers that don't meet your expectations.
>
> Again, to my original post, I am appreciative for the the info that Dr. Bob has nothing further to add - in particular, when a previously addressed topic is brought up.Friends,
It is written here,[...I've..come to the conclusion that..you are receiving answers...]
Here is one request to Dr. Hsiung in our dialog concerning if there is establishing a Dr/member relationship by him writing that he could ask about {why you >feel<}that you want to ask a poster to please not post to you.
I think that my request is deserving of an answer, as to one way or the other, to me from him because of the importance IMO of it. And, if the request from Dr. Hsiung to ask why one {feels}about anything does constitute a relationship, then could not all the members here be concerned about if it does or not?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697243.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:33:26
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:06:45
Friends,
It is written here,[...you are receiving answers...]
Here is a request from me to Dr. Hsiung that I do not see an answer to me as to my question for him to respond to me with what his thinking is concerning my want to have posted something in threads that you can not restore parts that had statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that do not appear now due to a change in the way links from that source are done.
Here are the suggestions that I asked Dr. Hsiung to answer and I do not see a posted reply from him to me as to what he thinks about my requests.
I think that it is important to me to know what Dr. Hsiung thinks about my suggestions.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/684955.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:41:04
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:33:26
Friends,
In the post above, one of my suggestions that I have not seen a posted reply to me from Dr. Hsiung as to what he thinks about it is the one where I am asking to have some type of symbol to alert the reader that a statement is uncivil, such as a red indicator or such to indicate caution.
I think that this is a reasonable request to have an answer as to one way or the other as to if this could be done.
Lou
Posted by Jost on November 12, 2006, at 1:53:47
In reply to Lou's response to aspects ofGlydin's post-redlite, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2006, at 15:41:04
Hi, Lou.
When you asked a series of questions about the possiblity of going through the archives and relitigating the civility status of old posts, Bob did answer you.
He said something to the effect of (I 'm paraphrasing), I'd rather leave the past in the past.
I took that to mean that he didn't want to go back into the archives (the past) to take up issues (old posts, whether they were civil or not), and bring them into the present by reevaluating them now.
Let me illustrate why putting new designations on old posts is inconsistent with leaving the past in the past.
Let's say you ask for review of an old post, for possible designation as not authorized, or not according to the rules of Pbabble.
First, Bob has to reread the old post, plus many other posts, to try to understand the context and the "tone" of the post-- because, as you know. the tone, or way something is said, is often an important element in its civility.
So he would have to do a great deal more, in the present, than read one post, and make a quick or clear-cut decision about it.
Furthermore, other people besides you might have opinions about changing the status of any post. There might be new discussions, new arguments, people getting upset on both sides of the issue, and then perhaps becoming uncivil in the heat of the moment. This could lead to a lot of dissension, conflict, and even the blocking of other people.
This, I believe, is Bob's rationale for not wanting to reopen the question of the civility of old posts.
It's also possible that in the course of these perhaps-heated discussions, further comments will be made that could cast some negative light on people of one or another religious or other group. This would aggravate the very situation that reconsideration was meant to heal.
So again, this is another rationale that I believe that Bob has for not wanting to bring the past (the old posts, civil or not) into the present (the new discussion that would arise from it).
That's how I see Bob's answer to your question about marking old posts.
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2006, at 5:17:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects ofGlydin's post-red, posted by Jost on November 12, 2006, at 1:53:47
Friends,
It is written here,[...{old} posts..past in the past..didn't want to go back..and bring them into the present..new designations on old posts..(Dr. Hsiung) has to reread..to try to understand..he would have to do..other people..there might be new discussions..people getting upset..lead to ..further comments could be made..would aggravate..bring the past into the present...].
My perspective here is that there is not a {past} or a {present}. Anyone can see any of the posts here, be them in the archives or not, >at the [present] time<. The archives are pages. They are pages before other pages and like a book, they precede what is posted and give definition to the next page. If one reads the last chapter of a book only, could they know what the book was about? I think that if someone read only the last chapter of a book and was interested in it, that they would probably start reading the book from its beginning to find out what the last chapter meant. There are people posting here that they go through the previous pages (archives). Dr. Hsiung has posted something like that the previous pages show what it is like here. The archives >have been< amended by Dr. Hsiung without people getting upset. An why would someone here get upset if posts that IMO that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or foster defamation toward me are notated as being uncivil?
Then there is the question of why posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to defame me were not notated as being uncivil when the were first posted. There could be several possibilities for that to have happened.
A. DR. Hsiung didn't read those posts at there innitial posting.
B. The deputies did not read them either
C. No one alerted Dr. Hsiung or the deputies about those posts
D. Something else.
But be advised reader here, that I objected to most those post at their innnitial appearing, sometimes within minuets after they were posted to Dr. Hsiung and all the deputies. This could put a different perspective IMO to why those posts are not notated as being uncivil and Dr. Hsiung has posted that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
DR. Hsiung also writes something like that [...I know it when it can be seen...]. Well, if he knows it when it can be seen, then could not there be the fair question as to why those posts in question are not notated as being uncivil?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2006, at 9:51:51
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects ofGlydin's post-red, posted by Jost on November 12, 2006, at 1:53:47
Friends,
One of my requests to Dr. Hsiung is for him to tell me what he thinks about my proposal for him to place an indicator in posts to indicate that a statement is not civil, rather than to make a new post with a {please be civil} statement in it.
I have not seen a post from him to me in the thread where I posted my request for him to write what he thinks spacifically about my proposal.
I think that my proposal is a meritorious to this ongoing dispute here. And I think that another member here did post something that said that a notation could be in order about the posts in question, I think that it was Scott(SLS), so if there was such a post, then I am not alone in thinking that my proposal could be of merit to this discussion.
I think that by DR. Hsiung or his deputy placing a red indicator, like the new member indicator, next to the statement in question, that Dr. Hsiung would not have to do something that is not feasible, for I could send the posts to a deputy and they could do the mechanics. As far as others disputing as to if the statement is civil or not, the aspects of what is accusative or what could lead one to feel put down or what could not be sensitive to the feelings of others are all defined by the past-practice here, so a dispute could be decided by the past practice, rather than a {new argument}.
There have been alterations to the pages here. In one case, Dr. Hsiung modified the page that had statements that put down Christians. I am asking for equal treatmnet as to statements here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to accuse Jews or that put down Jews. If Dr. Hsiung can modify the board where the statements that put down Christians were posted, is there some reason that he can not alter or modify a page where there are statements that put down Jews? If so, could you reading here state your rationale for such and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly? And Dr. Hsiung calls posts from pages that are not the last page here for sanctioning a poster based upon what the poster posted in a page other than the last page.
I think that my proposal could be good for the community as a whole. The statement by Josh,[...further comments {will} be made that could cast some negative light on people of one or another religious or other group...]I would like for anyone interested in my response to that statement to email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by notfred on November 12, 2006, at 14:28:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects ofGlydin's post-red, posted by Jost on November 12, 2006, at 1:53:47
> He said something to the effect of (I 'm paraphrasing), I'd rather leave the past in the past.
>
Good point. So Dr Bob has now answered all questions about going throug the archives to ID posts that someone thinks were uncivil. In this context, he has answered any variation, no matter how complex, if it conserns old posts and uncivility.Or to put it another way, leave the past in the past.
Posted by zazenducky on November 12, 2006, at 14:55:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects ofGlydin's post-red, posted by Jost on November 12, 2006, at 1:53:47
Thanks for your efforts. I find Bob difficult to understand. As long as the archives can be read and replied to they seem to exist in the present. Could you give me your interpretation of the rules in regard to the following situations please?
1. Is it OK to reply to an old post which I consider uncivil although it has not been sanctioned?
2. Can I disagree with that post without saying it is not civil?
3. If a post is in the archive and has not been labelled uncivil can I quote that post without being sanctioned?
4. Can I use one of my 3 complaints per person to complain about the civility of a post in the archives? If not, what is the cut off date for complaints?
> Hi, Lou.
>
> When you asked a series of questions about the possiblity of going through the archives and relitigating the civility status of old posts, Bob did answer you.
>
> He said something to the effect of (I 'm paraphrasing), I'd rather leave the past in the past.
>
> I took that to mean that he didn't want to go back into the archives (the past) to take up issues (old posts, whether they were civil or not), and bring them into the present by reevaluating them now.
>
> Let me illustrate why putting new designations on old posts is inconsistent with leaving the past in the past.
>
> Let's say you ask for review of an old post, for possible designation as not authorized, or not according to the rules of Pbabble.
>
> First, Bob has to reread the old post, plus many other posts, to try to understand the context and the "tone" of the post-- because, as you know. the tone, or way something is said, is often an important element in its civility.
>
> So he would have to do a great deal more, in the present, than read one post, and make a quick or clear-cut decision about it.
>
> Furthermore, other people besides you might have opinions about changing the status of any post. There might be new discussions, new arguments, people getting upset on both sides of the issue, and then perhaps becoming uncivil in the heat of the moment. This could lead to a lot of dissension, conflict, and even the blocking of other people.
>
> This, I believe, is Bob's rationale for not wanting to reopen the question of the civility of old posts.
>
> It's also possible that in the course of these perhaps-heated discussions, further comments will be made that could cast some negative light on people of one or another religious or other group. This would aggravate the very situation that reconsideration was meant to heal.
>
> So again, this is another rationale that I believe that Bob has for not wanting to bring the past (the old posts, civil or not) into the present (the new discussion that would arise from it).
>
> That's how I see Bob's answer to your question about marking old posts.
>
> Jost
>
Posted by zazenducky on November 12, 2006, at 15:08:40
In reply to The decision on old posts, posted by notfred on November 12, 2006, at 14:28:21
Maybe it should be made impossible to answer the posts in the past. That would seem to be the only way to leave them in the past if that is the administrator's wish.
> > He said something to the effect of (I 'm paraphrasing), I'd rather leave the past in the past.
> >
>
>
> Good point. So Dr Bob has now answered all questions about going throug the archives to ID posts that someone thinks were uncivil. In this context, he has answered any variation, no matter how complex, if it conserns old posts and uncivility.
>
> Or to put it another way, leave the past in the past.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2006, at 16:13:11
In reply to Re: questions about past posts » Jost, posted by zazenducky on November 12, 2006, at 14:55:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...as long as the archives can be read..they..>exist in the {present}<...].
The forum has pages like a book. One can read a book in the present, even though a page may have already been read. The page that is before another page is there because both pages can not be there and be read at the same time. Does that mean that one must conclude that one page is in the past and the other is in the present? In fact,if there is a present and a past page, could not one say that the sentence that was just read is {in the past} and that only the sentence that one is reading is in the present? If that is the case, then if one is using some thinking that only present statements can be sanctioned, then could any statement be sanctioned or would it be in the past, and past statements can not be sanctioned?
I do not think that DR. Hsiung means that statements that are not on the last page {can not} be sanctioned because he has sanctioned statements that were not on the last page at the time that he sanctioned them. So I wish zazenducky the best for the contribution here for bringing up the questions as to if there are past and present posts, then could you reply to them, could you cite them and not be sanctioned if they are uncivil but not sanctioned,etc.
This is why I am offering Dr. Hsiung my suggestion to have a symbol placed next to statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and other statements that are left unsanctioned that are uncivil. I think that my suggestion here has merit and could do no harm. If you the reader think that by placing a symbol next to an uncivil statement that is not on the last page here could do harm, then could you post what harm could be done, even if it is what others here have posted, and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2006, at 19:41:25
In reply to Locking the posts in the past, posted by zazenducky on November 12, 2006, at 15:08:40
Friends,
It is written here,[...if the administrator's wish is to leave posts that are not on the last page {in the past},then maybe it should be made so that those posts can not be posted to...].
I could offer even another suggestion if it is the adnministrator's wish to have posts in the past and posts in the present. That could be to have only one page and whatever is not on the one page, it is in the past and can not ever be seen again.
But people read the posts here in the present and what they are reading, they are presently reading.
There is something here that I have not posted about yet. It is about {establishment}. This is one reason why I am wanting the posts in question to be notated in some way as uncivil. For if they are not, it is my great fear that what is uncivil could be thought by some to be civil and be {established} as so.
This concept of {establishment} came out of the French Revolution and the U.S. Constitution. In 1947 a monumental determination that reverberated throughout the world was spoken. What was spoken then still stands today. In 1954 another milestone was achieved. There have been many more determinations since then that echo the same warning. I ask:For what good and just reason(s) could be given to allow uncivil statements to not be notated as uncivil? This is a different questin from the previous, for in this question, I am asking for both good and just causes.)
Lou
Posted by Glydin on November 12, 2006, at 20:49:01
In reply to Lou's response-zazenducky's post-gdanjst, posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2006, at 19:41:25
I am making a respectful request as the person who began this thread that you begin your own thread to continue the path this thread is currently going. My intentions are clear as to the reason I began this thread and it has gone far beyond that intention.
This is my request to you as I am aware I can only ask.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 13, 2006, at 3:39:05
In reply to Lou, posted by Glydin on November 12, 2006, at 20:49:01
I think it's a fair request you have made Glydin. Some posters who participate on threads that go off on tangents will take the initiative and state that they are starting a new thread themselves further down. I haven't seen anything in the FAQs that address this.
ClearSkies (just me)
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.