![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 18:49:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-2stan » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 17:53:52
> He's saying send the request again.
>
> I know it would be easier for me to find the request if it's right there on the first page of my inbox as opposed to searching for it among all the messages in my email. I would hazard a guess that also would apply to the others.
>
> Let's just keep it simple, eh? Please send it again.
>
> namaste
>
> deputy ggDeputy gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...it would be easier for me...right there..searching...keep it simple...].
Are you saying any of the following?
A. You have seen the notification because you remember it, but you will not look for it?
B. You have seen the notification for you remember it, but you want me to resend it because you would have to look for it?
C. You know of the notification because you remember it, but you would need to do a search in your email boxes and that is not simple for you to do?
D. you do not know one way or the other if the notification was sent?
E. the concept of {what is the easiest thing to do} trumps your concern as to if there are two standards here or not?
F. something else.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 18:49:26
Never mind, Lou.
I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 19:44:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
> Never mind, Lou.
>
> I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...never mind...]
If you mean that I am to not consider what you wrote to me here about resending the notification, then I feel sorry that you are retracting your discussing such with me.
You wrote,[...I know your concerns are valid to you...]
Yes, they are deeply valid to me, and I thought that in your post to me that you also were concerned, for you innitiated dialog with me.
I responded with a concern for clarification from you so that there could be less chance of any misunderstandings.
You wrote,[...your hypotheses about the meanings...]
I made no assumption about what your words mean, for I want to have clarificaztion from the author of the words so that I do not make an assumption. I still am unsure as to the requests from me to you here to clarify as to what you mean by what you wrote. If you could clarify those for me, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, but without knowing what you mean I could have a difficult time having dialog with you and would rather clarify before misunderstsndings could happen.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:00:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
> Never mind, Lou.
>
> I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
>
> ggGardenergirl,
You wrote,[...were you to expreess.. as statements...]
If I was to express something as a statement, that would be different from expressiog something as a request for clarification.
Sometimes requests for clarification are to {rule out} something and in this case I was hoping to have some things ruled out in order to open up a clearer path in dialog concerning the deepconcern that I have here as to if there are two standards or not.
I guess that in order to determine that, one of the six deputies or Dr. Hsiung could make it simple for me by declaring that they know of my notification or if they can say that there was no notification from me. As of now, I am unsure if any of the deputies or Dr. Hsiung has declared either one and I thought that your innitiation of dialog with me could lead me to having that clarification that I am concerned about here. I guess that I may not ever receive that clarification from the administration that concerns me here and may have to accept that.
Lou
Posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:00:24
Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
I hope this may help.
Honore
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 20:56:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » Lou PIlder, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
> Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
>
> 1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
>
> 2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
>
> Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
>
> I hope this may help.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...what difference..what gardenergirl meant...?]
The concern that I have here in this thread is about as to if there are two standards here or not.
The question as to if that can be determined or not could be a simple matter IMO of either DR. Hsiung or a deputy aknowlege that they know that I sent the notification, or if they could say for certian that I did not. Gardenergirl has posted that if one here does not receive a response, then they could post on the administration board something to alert the deputies and gardenergirl writes, [...That would be sufficient,at least for me, to check outstanding requests...].
To be continued...
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:08:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-simpl » Lou PIlder, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 20:31:33
> Lou, what difference it make at this point, what gg meant?
>
> 1. if you have already sent the notification, you can send it (again)
>
> 2. if you haven't already sent the notification, you an send it (for the first time)
>
> Either way, you can send a notification to Bob with no qualms about whether you can do it.
>
> I hope this may help.
>
> HonoreHonore,
You wrote,[...you can send your request to Dr. Hsiung...what difference what gardenergirl meant...?].
Let me include some aspects of the background concerning my deep concern here. But first, are you concerned or not about my deep concern as to if there are two standards here or not?
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:42:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-2stan » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 17:53:52
> He's saying send the request again.
>
> I know it would be easier for me to find the request if it's right there on the first page of my inbox as opposed to searching for it among all the messages in my email. I would hazard a guess that also would apply to the others.
>
> Let's just keep it simple, eh? Please send it again.
>
> namaste
>
> deputy gggardenergirl and friends,
Gardenergirl wrote,[...send the requests again...]
But what if the post in question is authored by a member that I have requested about three other posts of that member? You see, then I can not send it via the report feature. And how can one know from the FAQ here as to what, if any, procedure there is for one to find out how many posts of a member you have already sent if this counting goes back to conception of the forum?
But there is much more to this....
Lou
Posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme? » Honore, posted by Lou PIlder on January 30, 2007, at 21:08:32
Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
Honore
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 5:55:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme?, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
> Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
>
> I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
>
> So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
>
> Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
>
> ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
>
> However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
>
> To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
>
> Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
>
> So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
>
> Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
>
> Honore
>
Honore,
You wrote,[...I am >not concerned< about {their} present-day impact of readers on Psychobabble...].
I am unsure as to why you are {not concerned} about any present-day impact of some statements that have not been notated as being uncivil here. Could you elaborate some more about what statements are those that you are not concerned about and why you are {not concerned}? Are you not concerned about, for instance, posts that have statements IMO that historically have been used to foster the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, as to their impact on readers here in relation to them seeing statements of that nature to be allowed to stand without an administrative sanction that they are uncivil? It is my deep conviction that to estinguish any flames of defamation or discrimination that have the potential to be seen toward Jews here, could provide a clearer path to have social justice for all people.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 6:34:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy gardenergirl-ezr » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 19:23:39
> Never mind, Lou.
>
> I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here. I understand that the idiom,{never mind}, could mean to {not worry}. If I am not to worry, then could I think that there is clarification to my concerns forthcomming? If that is your intent in your use of the idiom to me, could you verify that?
Another connotation of the idiom {never mind}, is to disregard what someone said. Since you posted what is in question as a deputy, if you are saying that your intent in your use of the idiom is for what you posted to be diregarded, I am unsure if you mean just for me to disregard or if you mean that all members here are to disregard.Could you make another post in the thread where you posted the procedure to follow when one does not receive a response from the administrion in regards to a notification, if you mean that all members are to disregard, that you are asking all members to disregard your deputy administrative procedure?
If there could be something else that you mean by the use of {never mind} here to me, could you clarify this? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 7:15:04
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore--~con? » Honore, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 5:55:11
> > Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
> >
> > I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
> >
> > So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
> >
> > Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
> >
> > ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
> >
> > However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
> >
> > To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
> >
> > So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
> >
> > Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
> >
> > Honore
> >
> Honore,
> You wrote,[...I am >not concerned< about {their} present-day impact of readers on Psychobabble...].
> I am unsure as to why you are {not concerned} about any present-day impact of some statements that have not been notated as being uncivil here. Could you elaborate some more about what statements are those that you are not concerned about and why you are {not concerned}? Are you not concerned about, for instance, posts that have statements IMO that historically have been used to foster the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, as to their impact on readers here in relation to them seeing statements of that nature to be allowed to stand without an administrative sanction that they are uncivil? It is my deep conviction that to estinguish any flames of defamation or discrimination that have the potential to be seen toward Jews here, could provide a clearer path to have social justice for all people.
> Lou
> >
>
> Honore,
You wrote,[...I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend.This is because sometimes Dr. (Hsiung) may overlook a request accidently, or without knowing it...].
I am unsure as to what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is a double standard for you to resend if Dr. Hsiung did not overlook it?
B. It is a double standard even if he did overlook it because you have posted that you sent it according to the procedure that one here is to follow?
C. It is not a double standard to deny you the response if they are not in receipt of your request,but it is a double standard if they are in receipt of your request and are unwilling to respond. But by the nature that the deputy has posted {never mind}, the administration is now taking back their own offer to check for outstanding posts to Lou and thearfore, in your opinion, is a double standard unless they post that the offer to check for outstanding posts is withdrawn to all members here?
D. It is a double standard if the procedure in question to check outstanding requests is not honored to you, Lou, even if the offer to check outstanding requests is withdrawn to all members?
E. something else
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2007, at 15:14:54
In reply to Lou's request for clairification to gg-nvrmnd » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 6:34:01
> > Never mind, Lou.
> >
> > I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
> >
> > gg
>
> gardenergirl,
> You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
Namasté
gg
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 15:51:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clairification to gg-nvrmnd » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2007, at 15:14:54
> > > Never mind, Lou.
> > >
> > > I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> > gardenergirl,
> > You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> > I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.
>
> What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
>
> As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
>
> I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
>
> Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
>
> Namasté
>
> gg
>
gardenergir,
You wrote,[...what is your best guess...?{as to what you mean by |never mind,Lou|}...].
I really would not like to prejudge your intent as to what you mean by the use of the idiom here with a guess.
You wrote,[...your ..questions...go beyond the scope..I do not have the energy to..address them..the likelyhood of more questions...].
I am unsure as to what you mean by the above.
If the scope of our dialog is to clarify what you wrote to me, could you clarify why any reply to me from you concerning that, could be beyond the scope of our dialog?
In what you write as not having the energy, are you saying any of the following?
A. The energy required to address the questions here could be answerd by someone else that has more energy?
B. The questions require more energy to answer than most other members have here? If so, could you write how that could be concluded, and if in your opinion, let's say for an example, that another deputy, could or could not answer them?
C. The questions require more energy to answer because they are questions about what is meant by what you wrote?
D. The questions require more energy to answer because they are important questions?
E. something else
To be continued...
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 16:46:34
In reply to Lou's reply gardenergirl-byondscop » gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 15:51:40
> > > > Never mind, Lou.
> > > >
> > > > I know your concerns are valid to you. But I feel offended when reading your hypotheses about the meaning of my words. I likely would also feel accused were you to express those hypotheses as statements about your beliefs rather than as response choices. That seems like a fuzzy line to me.
> > > >
> > > > gg
> > >
> > > gardenergirl,
> > > You wrote,[...never mind, Lou...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you mean by your use of that idiom to me here.
> >
> > What's your best guess, given the context, about the meaning?
> >
> > As far as your specific questions about it, they go beyond the scope of my dialog here with you, and I don't have the energy to expend addressing them, especially given the likelihood of more questions in response.
> >
> > I'm exasperated and tired, Lou. I'm exasperated because whenever I try to facilitate what appears on the surface to be a simple need for assistance or a specific problem of yours, I end up feeling confused and powerless. It's as if I'm engrossed in a TV program only to find that suddenly the channel has changed to something completely different, more complicated, and in a foreign language. Wouldn't that be confusing? This is what it feels like to me when the topic changes from a simple, specific need or problem to potential discrimination or two standards.
> >
> > Add the above information to the feelings I described in my "never mind" post above, and perhaps you might see why I feel I need to disengage from this dialog. I likely will feel wary of entering in future dialogs with you as well.
> >
> > Namasté
> >
> > gg
> >
> gardenergir,
> You wrote,[...what is your best guess...?{as to what you mean by |never mind,Lou|}...].
> I really would not like to prejudge your intent as to what you mean by the use of the idiom here with a guess.
> You wrote,[...your ..questions...go beyond the scope..I do not have the energy to..address them..the likelyhood of more questions...].
> I am unsure as to what you mean by the above.
> If the scope of our dialog is to clarify what you wrote to me, could you clarify why any reply to me from you concerning that, could be beyond the scope of our dialog?
> In what you write as not having the energy, are you saying any of the following?
> A. The energy required to address the questions here could be answerd by someone else that has more energy?
> B. The questions require more energy to answer than most other members have here? If so, could you write how that could be concluded, and if in your opinion, let's say for an example, that another deputy, could or could not answer them?
> C. The questions require more energy to answer because they are questions about what is meant by what you wrote?
> D. The questions require more energy to answer because they are important questions?
> E. something else
> To be continued...
> Lou
>
gardenergirl,
You wrote,[...suddenly the channel has changed..more complicated..a simple need...problem of {yours}...discrimination..two standards..disengage...].
I am unsure of what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is more helpfull to not clarify what is written here?
B. It would be good for the community as a whole if requests for clarification were not responded to?
C. Resolving the past, which could find solutions for the present, is not helpfull?
D. something else?
Lou
>
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 17:20:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Honore-carabtme?, posted by Honore on January 30, 2007, at 23:34:46
> Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
>
> I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
>
> So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
>
> Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
>
> ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
>
> However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
>
> To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
>
> Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
>
> So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
>
> Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
>
> Honore
>
>
Honore,
You wrote,[...do not know.. what your concern is...].
This thread has perhps some concerns of mine that may be unbeknownst to you. This involves administration policy that involves more than what is being discussed here so far.
This thread has the potential to encompass policy involving requests to the adminstration and what is in the FAQ.
One issue here could bring into discussion the policy of reporting a post by a member that is one that 3 reports have been already requested. The post in question here for notification is not one of those members that I have used the report feature three times as of yet for that member, but could bring that policy into this discussion here. I hope as this thread could contimue, that these and other policy concerns by me here could help you better understand what my concerns are.
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 6, 2007, at 19:06:50
In reply to Lou's reply gardenergirl-soluforpres » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 16:46:34
I have not seen Lou on here for a while and am wondering if he ever got the reply he asked for and or if Dr Bob is going to answer him as GG stated she was weary etc.......I understand she does not wish to continue this discussion and I can respect the need for time away...but then...who did the request go to?
Thanks
Posted by kid47 on February 8, 2007, at 22:11:18
In reply to Did Lou ever get a reply? I am worried on Lou too, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 6, 2007, at 19:06:50
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:08:52
In reply to LOU You around? (nm), posted by kid47 on February 8, 2007, at 22:11:18
Kid47,
You wrote,[...You around?(Lou)..].
There are some requests from me to Dr. Hsiung in this thread that I could be better able to post here in this thread with a reply from him to me.
The requests are of the nature of my concern as to if he is or is not confirming or not that a request from me to the administration using the notification feature to report a post has or has not been received by the administration. I am unsure as to if the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's replies to me in this thread say that he has or has not received my notification that I sent that is in question.
Another aspect of this thread is that I am concerned as to if there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature to report a post. I am unsure of what the grammatical structure of the replies to me by the deputy here mean. This is in relation to a member posting on the administrative board that a notification has not either been addressed in the thread that it is in, or that the requestor has had an email from the administration concerning their opinion. The deputy has posted something like that posting on the administrative board is {sufficient} for the deputy to check outstanding notifications.
Have you read all of the posts in this thread? If so, could you offer any opinion here?
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:30:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-bechbys » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:08:52
> Kid47,
> You wrote,[...You around?(Lou)..].
> There are some requests from me to Dr. Hsiung in this thread that I could be better able to post here in this thread with a reply from him to me.
> The requests are of the nature of my concern as to if he is or is not confirming or not that a request from me to the administration using the notification feature to report a post has or has not been received by the administration. I am unsure as to if the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's replies to me in this thread say that he has or has not received my notification that I sent that is in question.
> Another aspect of this thread is that I am concerned as to if there are two standards here in relation to members using the notification feature to report a post. I am unsure of what the grammatical structure of the replies to me by the deputy here mean. This is in relation to a member posting on the administrative board that a notification has not either been addressed in the thread that it is in, or that the requestor has had an email from the administration concerning their opinion. The deputy has posted something like that posting on the administrative board is {sufficient} for the deputy to check outstanding notifications.
> Have you read all of the posts in this thread? If so, could you offer any opinion here?
> Lou
>
Kid47,
If you are considering responding to the aspects of this thread, the following post by me here could offer what my concerns are about here in this thread.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/728181.html
Posted by kid47 on February 9, 2007, at 10:54:34
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-2standnotif? » Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 9:30:23
Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
Peace my friend
kid
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:03:15
In reply to Lou, posted by kid47 on February 9, 2007, at 10:54:34
> Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
>
> Peace my friend
>
> kidKid47,
In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:43:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-bengptdn? » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:03:15
> > Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
> >
> > Peace my friend
> >
> > kid
>
> Kid47,
> In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
> I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
> A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
> B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
> C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
> D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
> E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
> I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
> There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
> There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
> If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
> Lou
>
Kid47,
There are many more aspects involved in this concern of mine here besides receiving a response from the administration concerning what the notification was about.
You see, the notification that I sent was about another policy here that I was asking from the administration to tell me what could be any differentiating aspects that could allow one and not another in relation to that policy that I will not specify here. I will by email, though.
This policy, if my notification was responded to, could have in my opinion, other aspects of this forum to be brought out.
This could involve all the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum and the please do not post to me rule, and the 3 noification rule, although the poster that authored the post in question is not one that I have sent 3 other notifications.
Perhaps this could be made clearer by email since I am unsure as to if those new rules could allow some things that I would like for you to know to be posted here.
The offer to email is open to anyone.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:56:00
In reply to Lou's reply to Kid47-mnymoraspecs, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:43:26
Did all of you not get his report? Could you let us (Posters) know? Thank you ahead.
> > > Hey Lou. What about notiyfing the administration again. Then possibly post here that you have notified the administration on such and such a date and time concerning this matter. That would sort of make it public record. It would of course be good if the administration would then aknowledge receipt of your notification.....either personally or here if you wish. Just a thought to cut down on some of the rehashing.
> > >
> > > Peace my friend
> > >
> > > kid
> >
> > Kid47,
> > In my replies to Honore in this thread, you could find some other aspects of my concerns in regards to the notification feature here.
> > I would like for you to examine those replies from me to him/her and his/her statements to me and if you could, to ask yourself the following:
> > A. Are there two standards by the administration in regards to a member using the notification feature in receiving a reply from them ?
> > B. Is there an additional step to me to have a reply from them?
> > C. Has the administration acknowledged that they have or have not confirmed that I have sent the notification in question? If you se such a confirmation, could you post it here in this thread?
> > D. In one of Honore's posts, does he/she write something like that perhaps Dr. Hsiung (and I guess all 6 deputies) have somehow missed it and are not imposing a different standard to you to write to you to send it again? And did I not write back to Honore something like that if it is the case if Dr. Hsiung,(and I guess all 6 deputies) have not missed it that thearfore then that there could be two standards by writing to me to send it again?
> > E. Have I not posted that I am requesting to Dr. Hsiung to clarify as to if he is saying that he did or did not receive the notification in question from me and that if I had the confirmation either way from him that I could either send it again or respond accordingly?
> > I am awaiting a reply from Dr. Hsiung or any deputy to confirm or to not confirm that I sent the notification using the proper procedure.
> > There is also my concern here about the additional procedure by the deputy for members that have not received a response to their sending of a notification, since now there is a post below this thread where a member writes to the administration to check a notification and then the member writes back a thank you. That could mean that that member had his/her notification replied to without sending it again. If that be the case here, then could that mean that there are or are not two standards here and if there are not, what could be a differentiating aspect for one request to check a notification being responded to, if it was responded to as per the thank you that followed in the thread, and my request to check the notification not being responded to unless I send it again? I guess that one reason could be if they are saying that they did not receive it from me, and that is the clarification that I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung and the deputies, for does not the notification goes to all of them?
> > There is also my concern about the policy of the 3 notification rule that could come into this discussion if I receve a reply from Dr. Hsiung either confirming or not that he did or did not receive my notification to him in question here.
> > If there are two standards here in relation to this concern of mine, so that the notification that I have sent will not be respnded to by the administration in the same manner as other's notifications, in relation that if I do not resend the notification it will not be either addressed in the thread where it is posted or that I will receive a reply by email, then if that would be having two standards, in your opinons, could the having of two standards have the potential to lead that one that is subjected to the additional step to feel put down? And is it not an unsound mental-health practice to put someone down?
> > Lou
> >
> Kid47,
> There are many more aspects involved in this concern of mine here besides receiving a response from the administration concerning what the notification was about.
> You see, the notification that I sent was about another policy here that I was asking from the administration to tell me what could be any differentiating aspects that could allow one and not another in relation to that policy that I will not specify here. I will by email, though.
> This policy, if my notification was responded to, could have in my opinion, other aspects of this forum to be brought out.
> This could involve all the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum and the please do not post to me rule, and the 3 noification rule, although the poster that authored the post in question is not one that I have sent 3 other notifications.
> Perhaps this could be made clearer by email since I am unsure as to if those new rules could allow some things that I would like for you to know to be posted here.
> The offer to email is open to anyone.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
>
Posted by kid47 on February 12, 2007, at 11:54:38
In reply to All deputies and Dr Bob?, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 11, 2007, at 19:56:00
Granted I have not followed this thread closely, but it would appear to me that Lou is merely asking to be apprised of the status of a notification he sent you. Are there circumstances that makes this a difficult request to address either on this forum or to Lou personally? Could you please respond so maybe Lou and others can move on from this.
Thanks
Peace
kid
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.