![[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 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)
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 6:18:28
In reply to Re: Lou » Glydin, posted by ClearSkies on November 13, 2006, at 3:39:05
> 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)Friends,
ClearSkies has written here,[...a >fair< request..posters {that participate} on threads {that go off on >tangents<}..state that they are starting a new thread...nothing in the FAQ is seen about this...].
The FAQ writes that different points of view are in fact encouraged.The thread in question here is about >me< and Glydin has posted directly to me, Jost has posted directly to me and zazenducky has posted his/her point of view.I have posted my responses to glydin's post, posts by Josh and zazenducky's posts and if I am not allowed to post my response to aspects of posts here that are about my dialog with DR. Hsiung, then could others?
I have posted my responses to aspects of the posts directed to me. My responses may not be what those that directed posts to me expected or wanted, but in a discussion forum different points of view are to be expected and respected.
I respect all points of view and my perspective here is only {another point of view} in a mental health community. It may not be what another thinks,it may not be what another wanted others to see, it may not be what others consider to be orthodox. But in a discussion forum, there will be others that think differently and post their perspective to the aspects of what is posted by another and different points of view are what makes a discussion forum what it is. If only one point of view was permitted in a thread, then we could not have a discussion with different points of view, which the FAQ writes as to be encouraged.
If the thread {went off in a tangent}, then could the tangent be innitiated by other discussants? There are other discussant's posts >to me< titled "Lou PIlder" and "Lou". Then there are posts that are my response to aspects of the posts directed to me by other participants in the discussion.
Then there are posts by Jost directed to me. Then there are posts by me responding to aspects of what was directed to me about me.
I am only responding to others that innitiated a discussion with me, about me, and my posts in dialog with Dr. Hsiung and others about DR. Hsiung's rules and policy which is what this administrative board is for the express purpose of. In an administrative discussion, there will be aspects discussed that others could have a differnt perspective or point of view concerning what is being discussed. These differences is what makes a vibrant discussion. These differences are what can bring out support and education for others. These differences are what makes a pluristic community with diversity and acceptance of others point of view to be allowed to be heard.
I am responding to ClearSkies statement,[...I think it is a fair request...]. Well, who will make that determination as to if Glydin's request to me to start another thread is {fair}?
If it is fair, then would not also it mean that only those with one point of view be allowed to post to only that one point of view, or not? If not, then what does the request mean?
If it is fair to request that I start another thread, then could not the forum then be for >indoctrination< rather than for {support and education}? If not, could you the reader here post why not, and I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2006, at 6:35:45
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Re: Lou-CS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 6:18:28
to simply respect a request by someone.
Posted by zazenducky on November 13, 2006, at 8:21:51
In reply to Lou, posted by Glydin on November 12, 2006, at 20:49:01
Why did you address your request to Lou specifically? He was answering my post. Did you consider my post off the topic? At what point did the coversation begin to diverge from what you would find pleasing? If you can tell me perhaps I might start a new thread and cut and paste from that point on?
I certainly had no intentions of offending you! And frankly I believe everyone in the thread to be the nicest of the nice!
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 8:33:33
In reply to sometimes it is easier, and nicer.., posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2006, at 6:35:45
Friends,
I have considered the request made to me here to start a new thread {if I want to continue the >path< that the thread is going.}.
There are posts about me , directed to me and using my name that I am posting responses to from my perspective which has the potential IMO to offer support and education here by giving clarification to what is posted to me and could be about me. There is a poster, zazenducky, that has posted and I have posted support from my perspective in response to zazenducky's post. I have posted my responses to Glydin's and Jost's posts to me.
If it is easier and nicer for me to start a new thread to post responses to other's statements directed to me {if that is the intention of the poster's post her that syas that}, then could it also be easier and nicer for others that are directing posts to me to start a new thread to direct posts to me, and then I could respond to those posts that are directed to me in that new thread?
So in my consideration of the request made to me here to start a new thread {if I want to continue the path that the thread is going}, I could do that if I wanted to continue the path that the thread is going. But I am responding to aspects of other's post >to me< or aspects of other's posts that I would like to offer support to from my perspective. If the path is going some way, others could post to have others go to another path, which is a characterisitc of a civil discussion, for different points of view are encouraged here.
I really do not know if I am being requested not to respond to posts directed at me because my responses could show a different path, for this is unclear to me. If it could be considered to be {fair} that I not post responses to posts that are directed to me,({if} that is what the poster is intending), I ask if it is fair to post to me and then say that I can not post my response to the post to me {if that is what the poster is intending}? If I can not post my responses to posts directed to me or about me, then would that be fair?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 8:48:13
In reply to I'm nice but i'm not easy ;) » Glydin, posted by zazenducky on November 13, 2006, at 8:21:51
Zazenducky,
you wrote,[...I believe everyone in the thread to be the nicest of the nice!...]
Lou's sixth smiley>:-)
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on November 13, 2006, at 12:11:46
In reply to Lou's response to zazenducky's post » zazenducky, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 8:48:13
One can honor it or not as one chooses. No one's in trouble, no one has been criticized. No one's been accused. It's just a request.
gg
Posted by zazenducky on November 13, 2006, at 18:33:19
In reply to It's just a simple request!, posted by gardenergirl on November 13, 2006, at 12:11:46
Thanks for sharing! Interesting interpretation!
>
>
>
> gg
Posted by verne on November 14, 2006, at 5:19:08
In reply to Lou's response to zazenducky's post » zazenducky, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2006, at 8:48:13
I just think you should talk about me instead. Where do I begin?
How cute I am or just how *terribly* cute I am? These are worthwhile topics and we can discuss them both.
most assuredly cutely (not sure I spelled everything right which adds to the cuteness) yours
Verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2006, at 6:24:50
In reply to Re: Lou's response to zazenducky's post » Lou Pilder, posted by verne on November 14, 2006, at 5:19:08
Friends,
It is written here,[...I just think that you should talk about me instead...]
There has been a request from the innitiator of this thread for others to start a new thread if they would want to post what could in some way lead others to go to a path that is what the poster did not intend.
Was not the original post a {thank you}to DR. Hsiung for posting >to me< a reply that he had nothing to add now to what I had requested of him? The poster thanked Dr. Hsiung for that and wrote ,[...makes things clearer...].
My request to DR. Hsiung was to that I am uncertain, and it is unclear to me at this time, as to if his rules and policy:
A.Allow me to send a proposed post in advance to him or not for approval without a condition to me to have someone else see it firsr, I guess by email.
I think that to have an additional condition to me than others here is subjecting me to a different standard than others because the FAQ writes that one can always send something to Dr. Hsiung or a deputy to see if it is OK, and I am asking Dr. Hsiung if he has rescinded his request to me and that if I can send the proposed post to him without that additional condition to me. At this time, I am uncertain as to if he has rescinded his request to me or.
B. Another aspect of Dr. Hsiung's new rules made here is that it is unclear to me if I can or can not have someone use the {report this post feature} >in my behalf< so that the 3 rule to me could be circumvented by me having someone else ask about those poster's posts that I can not ask about {in my behalf}.
DR. Hsiung's reply to me has been something like,[...nothing at this time to add...]and that is what the poster thanked him for writing.
So I guess that one path that is intended here is for others to also thank DR. Hsiung for writing that to me. But that path could have a fork in the road, could it not? And one could continue on the thank you to DR. Hsiung path, and one could take the path that Dr.Hsiung's reply to me did not make things clearer to me.
C. Another aspect of the discussion is that people can read in the present all that is in the pages here. There are posts here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and/or foster defamation toward me by the nature IMO that those posts are not said to be uncivil by the administartion and are allowed to stand. I am asking that a notation be made to those posts that they are uncivil. One question here from me has been as to what harm that could do to anyone here if the administration did accomodate my request to them to do that.
D. Other requests for clarification to Dr. Hsiung about his policy and rules that I am uncertain about.
There has been a request that the thread stay on a path intended. I think that the path is about what is {clearer} or not as a result of Dr. Hsiung's reply to me, and if you would want to contribute to either thanking DR. Hsiung for what he wrote as a reply to me, or to contribute to what is clear or not, or something else that could arrise out of the discussion here, I think that that is the path that is brought up in this thread.
Lou
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.