![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on December 7, 2006, at 19:41:01
In reply to Dr. Bob, For what it's worth, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2006, at 19:29:02
Or a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone, get an opinion, and then send it to Dr. Bob for his "final answer". I'm really not sure what's been getting in the way of Lou going ahead and following Dr. Bob's request. I would imagine if there were something that was really important to me to post, I'd go ahead and get the ball rolling on getting it posted.
gg, who would never take it upon herself to set board policy, as that would not be within the scope of her role as deputy. But who instead tries, in her role as deputy, to help out fellow posters by answering administrative questions as best she can.
And who also answers Lou's questions by posting as a deputy since he requested she not post to him for whatever reason.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 7, 2006, at 19:42:43
In reply to Dr. Bob, For what it's worth, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2006, at 19:29:02
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2006, at 19:48:30
In reply to Dr. Bob, For what it's worth, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2006, at 19:29:02
Friends,
Dinah has written to Dr Hsiung that she thinks that I have a valid request to ask Dr. Hsiung for a review os a post ahead of me posting it. She writes that he is the best person to answer the question that I have.
But there is much more to this than that. You see, I could easily circumvent this entire matter and just send it to him without asking anyone first, could I not? But if I was to do that, my concience would object to giving Dr. Hsiung the false impression that I asked someone else first, when I had not. In your opinions, would that be good for the community as a whole?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2006, at 20:03:17
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, For what it's worth, posted by gardenergirl on December 7, 2006, at 19:41:01
FRiends,
It is written here,[...a ..solution could be for Lou to send it to someone else first...to get.. it posted].
I am asking that the TOS here be made equal to me as others. I could submit to being subjected to a different standard here, for the FAQ does not write that one send it to someone else first, in order to have the post's ball rolling, as the deputy/member suggests. But I ask, would that be good for the community as a whole?
Try and see it my way. I ask, what purpose is there to have me ask someone else first when others are not asked that in the FAQ? If you could answer that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2006, at 20:10:03
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, For what it's worth, posted by gardenergirl on December 7, 2006, at 19:41:01
Friends,
It is written here,[...answers Lou's questions as a deputy >since< he has posted to PDNP to him...].
I think that even though there is the stipulation, I ask: could one can still respond to aspects of a post as a member?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 14:01:09
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2006, at 16:12:02
> My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
Why do you ask?
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 15:44:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 14:01:09
> > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> Bob
>I don't even know how to spell subourning perjury but by golly I think it would be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing if you thought that was the case!
Actually Lou has a long record of not trying to go around your rules and my guess would be that he doesn't want to commit deceit and is checking with you first before following her advice. Why didn't you answer the question?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 15:50:54
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 14:01:09
> > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> Bob
Dr. Hsiung,
The question that I had involves administration policy/rules here. In order to for me answer you question, I would need a great amount of time to do research to bring up many related posts here.
I am not wanting at this time to have an answer from you about the question that I had to you that you are asking me why I asked you, and would like to withdraw the question that I had to you. If you post here that you would want to continue this discussion, that would be fine and I will continue.
Lou Pilder>
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 16:31:56
In reply to I don't know about Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 15:44:30
Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou has a long record of trying not to go around your (Dr.Hsiung's) rules...checking with you before following her advice...Why didn't you answer the question...].
ZZDuk has brought up many issues before us now. And it is much more IMO than just this one issue here. For me to contribute in this thread could have me need to cite many posts of the past- practice.
ZZDuk writes what can be seen by her/him. I ask that if you are going to contribute to this discussion that you consider the following in your post as to what the deputy/member wrote;
A. the deputy/member writes,[...Yes you can send it to (Dr. Hsiung)..he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not...]
B.that she is using to base that statement on her confidence in her common sense
C. that she write that she is certain it is not a requirement for me to send it to someone else first before I send it to Dr. Hsiung
D.that she is certain that I would not have any administrative action toward me if I did
E and that I am to please consider her response to me as a response from a deputy to help me understand the rules.
This {response from a >deputy< makes a great difference than if her response was from her as a member. She later wrote something like that her response had to be as a deputy because I had issued a PDNP . If that is the case, then I think that this issue is moot and I have asked Dr. Hsiung to consider my request to allow me to withdraw the question in question, because as a member it is an opinion, that is diferent than from a deputy concerning board policy.
So I ask that you consider these statements in any post here that you would like to contribute.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 17:58:17
In reply to I don't know about Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 15:44:30
> > > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
> >
> > Why do you ask?
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> I don't even know how to spell subourning perjury but by golly I think it would be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing if you thought that was the case!I'm kicking myself even as I type this, but I just have to ask... are you saying that you interpret this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/710831.html , particularly where I write "Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not" as advice from me to Lou regarding what he should do, and that said "advice" would be uncivil?
>
> Actually Lou has a long record of not trying to go around your rules and my guess would be that he doesn't want to commit deceit and is checking with you first before following her advice. Why didn't you answer the question?Exactly which "advice" are you referring to? There's also this "advice" http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711276.html "Or a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone, get an opinion, and then send it to Dr. Bob for his "final answer"."
Oh and by the way, feel free to demand an "impeachment hearing" whenever you like. Please be aware, however, that you'd be demanding something that does not exist in Babble procedures. So you might wish to consider demanding that "impeachment hearings" exist before demanding that one be held. Just a thought.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:13:13
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of ZZDuk's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 16:31:56
> and I have asked Dr. Hsiung to consider my request to allow me to withdraw the question in question, because as a member it is an opinion, that is diferent than from a deputy concerning board policy.
Just to clarify in case anyone wonders, there's no rule or precedent that says that a poster must request Dr. Bob "allow" them to withdraw a request. Anyone can withdraw a request at any time. It's their request, after all, not Dr. Bob's.
gg
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 18:30:47
In reply to Are you saying my post was not civil? » zazenduckie, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 17:58:17
Did you see my post asking what you meant when you posted "There goes that hope...KABOOM nm" ? It was in another thread.
Since the only hope I recall speaking of was that ASV was not really dead, was that the hope you were referring to? I know you said my idea about looking for a death record made sense (or something like that) and to let you know what I found out. But I said I didn't want to do that. Are you saying that you yourself have some definitive proof that ASV is really dead? I was very puzzled by your post and you never answered my question.
> > > > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
> > >
> > > Why do you ask?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
............................................
I don't even know how to spell subourning perjury but by golly I think it would (IF Bob's answer was yes that you were advocating Lou commit deceit) be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing IF you (Bob) thought that was the case!That was what I meant.
..................................
>
> I'm kicking myself even as I type this, but I just have to ask... are you saying that you interpret this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/710831.html , particularly where I write "Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not" as advice from me to Lou regarding what he should do, and that said "advice" would be uncivil?
.................
No I didn't express any personal opinion of that at all.
...............
> >
> > Actually Lou has a long record of not trying to go around your rules and my guess would be that he doesn't want to commit deceit and is checking with you first before following her advice. Why didn't you answer the question?
>
> Exactly which "advice" are you referring to? There's also this "advice" http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711276.html "Or a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone, get an opinion, and then send it to Dr. Bob for his "final answer"."
>
> Oh and by the way, feel free to demand an "impeachment hearing" whenever you like. Please be aware, however, that you'd be demanding something that does not exist in Babble procedures. So you might wish to consider demanding that "impeachment hearings" exist before demanding that one be held. Just a thought.
>
....................
GG dear are you supposed to be writing a thesis? I hate to depart from my purely admistrative speculations and suggestions ...but GOOD GRIEF are you actually spending time on advising me about Babble impeachment hearings?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 18:31:38
In reply to Are you saying my post was not civil? » zazenduckie, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 17:58:17
Friends,
It is written here,[...a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone...]
But I ask, would it not be just as simple a solution for Dr. Hsiung to reply to my request as to if it is a requirement to me or not to send it to someone else first?
You see, I replied to something like that more than once here in other threads. It is my great conviction that imposing any additional stipulation to one person than to others is not good for the community as a whole and IMO could have the potential to be considered to constitute discrimination. For I believe that any terms and conditions of the terms of service are to be for all the members here. The FAQ here writes that members here can always send a post to Dr. Hsiung for review. I am a member here and I would like to send the post in question for review beforehand without sending to someone else first. The issue involves as to if I can or can not as per DR. Hsiung's request to send it to someone else first. I am asking if it is a request or a requirement from him. This is because I am unsure if it is or not.
The questions here in the dialog with me and DR. Hsiung could add another step to me to have an answer to the question as to if it is a requirement to me or not to send it to someone else first. Is not gardenergirl's answer not an answer now from the administration as a deputy since she has posted that my request to PDNP, is as a member's opinion?
I would like to post here in accordance with the rules and policy and I am asking what those rules and policies are , for I am unsure as to that. I also would like equal treatment and I think that what the TOS in the FAQ is to all members which does not have members here ask another first before sending the post for acceptibility beforehand.
Here is one post to that.
Lou
http:www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711284.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 18:44:18
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 14:01:09
> > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> Bob
> DR. Hsiung,
In accordance with board procedures as alerted to me by deputy/member gardenergirl, anyone can withdraw a request.
I think that since deputy/member gardenergirl has explained that she was not intending, for her reason given, to reply to me with the statements in question as a deputy, but as a member, that I withdraw my request to you concerning that because the statements are not from the administration and I consider them moot now.
Thanks,
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711645.html.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:51:51
In reply to Hi GG ...a question and an answer » gardenergirl, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 18:30:47
> Did you see my post asking what you meant when you posted "There goes that hope...KABOOM nm" ? It was in another thread.
>
> Since the only hope I recall speaking of was that ASV was not really dead, was that the hope you were referring to? I know you said my idea about looking for a death record made sense (or something like that) and to let you know what I found out. But I said I didn't want to do that. Are you saying that you yourself have some definitive proof that ASV is really dead? I was very puzzled by your post and you never answered my question.Wow, um... Geez. Um. Lordy.
It was my own wish expressed privately.
I didn't reply to your question because it didn't occur to me that you might be reading it as being about you and having so much more meaning than it did. I assumed the question was along the lines of when you ask me how Barbaro is doing.
> > > > > My question is if you would consider what the deputy/member, gardenergirl, has written to me to do, as to constitute advocating that I commit deceit?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you ask?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> ............................................
> I don't even know how to spell subourning perjury but by golly I think it would (IF Bob's answer was yes that you were advocating Lou commit deceit) be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing IF you (Bob) thought that was the case!
>
> That was what I meant.
>
> ..................................
> >
> > I'm kicking myself even as I type this, but I just have to ask... are you saying that you interpret this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/710831.html , particularly where I write "Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not" as advice from me to Lou regarding what he should do, and that said "advice" would be uncivil?
> .................
> No I didn't express any personal opinion of that at all.So this, "I think it would (IF Bob's answer was yes that you were advocating Lou commit deceit) be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing IF you (Bob) thought that was the case!" is someone else's opinion?
> > >
> > > Actually Lou has a long record of not trying to go around your rules and my guess would be that he doesn't want to commit deceit and is checking with you first before following her advice. Why didn't you answer the question?
> >
> > Exactly which "advice" are you referring to? There's also this "advice" http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711276.html "Or a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone, get an opinion, and then send it to Dr. Bob for his "final answer"."
> >Didja miss this one?
> > Oh and by the way, feel free to demand an "impeachment hearing" whenever you like. Please be aware, however, that you'd be demanding something that does not exist in Babble procedures. So you might wish to consider demanding that "impeachment hearings" exist before demanding that one be held. Just a thought.
> >
> ....................
> GG dear are you supposed to be writing a thesis? I hate to depart from my purely admistrative speculations and suggestions ...but GOOD GRIEF are you actually spending time on advising me about Babble impeachment hearings?Heck no, I'm not writing a thesis. I've already completed the MA. Now don't you go worrying about me and how I spend my time. But thanks for your concern.
Pat pat pat pat.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:58:47
In reply to Lou withdraws his request to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 18:44:18
> ... because the statements are not from the administration and I consider them moot now.
So would the opinion of all babblers render the request moot?I feel quite worthless now, at least as just plan gg. Gosh, my words make things moot? Heck, what's the point in my posting anything else at all?
I sure hope no one else ever feels this way here. It's yucky.
gg
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 19:08:53
In reply to Re: Hi GG ...a question and an answer » zazenduckie, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:51:51
>
> So this, "I think it would (IF Bob's answer was yes that you were advocating Lou commit deceit) be uncivil and I'd demand an impeachment hearing IF you (Bob) thought that was the case!" is someone else's opinion?
>
> > > >
> > > > Actually Lou has a long record of not trying to go around your rules and my guess would be that he doesn't want to commit deceit and is checking with you first before following her advice. Why didn't you answer the question?
> > >
> > > Exactly which "advice" are you referring to? There's also this "advice" http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/711276.html "Or a simple solution would be for Lou to just go ahead and send it to someone, get an opinion, and then send it to Dr. Bob for his "final answer"."
> > >
>
> Didja miss this one?I was referring to whatever advice Lou was asking for a determination on from Bob. If Bob thought it was a suggestion to be deceitful I assumed Lou would not want to follow it.
> Heck no, I'm not writing a thesis. I've already completed the MA.OOps sorry!
Now don't you go worrying about me and how I spend my time. But thanks for your concern.
>
> Pat pat pat pat.Hey careful there That's not my head
Thanks for clearing up the other post.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 19:17:22
In reply to Are we all moot?, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:58:47
Posted by henrietta on December 8, 2006, at 19:17:58
In reply to Re: Hi GG ...a question and an answer » zazenduckie, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:51:51
"It was my own wish expressed privately. "
It was expressed openly on a public board. I don't understand what you mean by saying it was expressed "privately". Can you elaborate?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 19:19:35
In reply to Are we all moot?, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:58:47
Friends,
It is written here,[...would the opinion of all babblers render the request moot?...]
This is in response to that I have withdrawn my question to DR. Hsiung in question here.
The word moot generally means that the significance of something is not relevant now. This usually happens when what is in question does not apply to new circumstances.
In the aspect here in question, the clarification given to me by deputy/member gardenergirl made me consider that my original question to DR. Hsiung now does not have significance {to me}. Thearfore, I withdrew the question.
If another member here considers the question significant {to them}, could they not reinstitute the question to DR. Hsiung from themselves?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 19:37:29
In reply to Re: Hi GG ...a question and an answer » gardenergirl, posted by henrietta on December 8, 2006, at 19:17:58
The fact that it went Kaboom! so quickly was publicly expressed.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 19:44:02
In reply to Are we all moot?, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:58:47
Friends,
It is written here,[...just plan (plain?)gg..my words make things moot?..]
Allow me to clarify, if I understand what is written here.
The function of the deputy is to >assist< Dr. Hsiung when he can not be online. The deputy then, IMO, becomes in loco administrati, or, in place of the administrator. This could be like anything from an administrtaive assistant to the Vice President. But the deputy administrator is delegated with authority that the members do not have. That makes a huge distinction and difference IMO as to the weight of the words that the deputy carries verses the weight of the words as a member. So IMO what is said under the auspices of the deputy is different than if those same words were posted as a member. The deputy is a representative of the administration while the administrator is not online and takes the place to specified functions that are administrative. The member does not have the same authority.
So if ,let's say, Dinah says that the rules here are such and such,{as acting as a deputy}, that to me could be different to me as if she wrote the same as a member, because one is representing the administration and the other is a member only as her opinion. When a deputy speaks, IMO it is the same as DR. Hsiung speaking, you may disagree.
Lou
Posted by sunnydays on December 8, 2006, at 19:48:17
In reply to Are we all moot?, posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2006, at 18:58:47
(((((((((((gg)))))))))
I don't think you're moot. I think you're very intelligent and you speak clearly and relevantly about administrative matters (and other matters as well). :)
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 20:01:14
In reply to Re: Are we all moot? » gardenergirl, posted by sunnydays on December 8, 2006, at 19:48:17
Friends,
It is written here,[...I don't think you're (gg) moot...]
I also do not think that gg is moot. If this is a result of any misunderstanding, let me clarify. If it is thought that I am writing that anyone is moot, it is not that the person could become moot but that some statements can become moot when a different light is put on a subject. This is explained in my previous post
Thanks,
Lou.
Posted by verne on December 8, 2006, at 21:34:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of sunnyday's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 20:01:14
To say that a discussion is *moot* doesn't suggest anything about an individual's "mootness".
As I understand it: further input may have been thought moot because the issue had already been decided by Dr. Bob. Or, just as plausible, Dr. Bob hadn't decided, also rendering further discussion moot. Or, perhaps, some facts were beyond discovery, rendering the discussion moot.
Here on the administration board many discussions go nowhere because further input from Dr Bob is required. If we can't arrive anywhere or solve anything, the discussion is moot. This doesn't mean participants are somehow invalid, bad problem-solvers, or moot.
This isn't so much a case of beating a dead horse but realizing that we were whipping the *wrong* dead horse.
verne
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.