![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 12:15:59
DR Hsiung,
You have posted,
[...I don't consider it civil to post anything that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...](ref A)
You have posted,
[...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something-- or to some extent even if it's true--if it is uncivil, they shouldn't post it...] (Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
The rules for the faith board are defined at the top. Let us look at those here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith
I am requesting that we have discussion concerning what you have posted in regards to that the statement in question that you responded to on the faith board today and asks for follow ups to be redirected to the administrative board continue here.
I am requesting in regards to your TOS that it is fine to discuss the actions that you take and to ask you for your rationale and discuss policy here.
In,[...particular posters sometimes won't feel supported...], could you clarify if I am one of those posters that you mean in regards to the post that you responded to in (ref A) on the end of this post? If so, in regards to your rules for the faith forum, posts that could lead another to feel accused or put down are not civil. If there is a post that accuses or has the potential to lead one to feel put down, either the member or the group, then could you consider that those members of that group could also not feel supported? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean and I am trying to determine by what you have posted as to if there are or are not two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced the unapproved statement with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...]
Lou Pilder
ref A
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20070227/msgs/768941.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 12:39:42
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification-2?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 12:15:59
> DR Hsiung,
> You have posted,
> [...I don't consider it civil to post anything that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...](ref A)
> You have posted,
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something-- or to some extent even if it's true--if it is uncivil, they shouldn't post it...] (Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> The rules for the faith board are defined at the top. Let us look at those here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith
> I am requesting that we have discussion concerning what you have posted in regards to that the statement in question that you responded to on the faith board today and asks for follow ups to be redirected to the administrative board continue here.
> I am requesting in regards to your TOS that it is fine to discuss the actions that you take and to ask you for your rationale and discuss policy here.
> In,[...particular posters sometimes won't feel supported...], could you clarify if I am one of those posters that you mean in regards to the post that you responded to in (ref A) on the end of this post? If so, in regards to your rules for the faith forum, posts that could lead another to feel accused or put down are not civil. If there is a post that accuses or has the potential to lead one to feel put down, either the member or the group, then could you consider that those members of that group could also not feel supported? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean and I am trying to determine by what you have posted as to if there are or are not two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced the unapproved statement with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...]
> Lou Pilder
> ref A
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20070227/msgs/768941.html
>
Friends,
Looking at my post above, my concern is that DR. Hsiung has posted,[...|being supportive takes precedence|...] and, [...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down...] and,[...including anti_Semitic statements...]
Dr. Hsiung has posted what he agrees with me as to if a statement is or is not antisemitic and I have a list from an authoritative source that lists all the statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down or accused. If you would like me to email the posts in question and the lists, to follow this discussion and perhaps be better able to respond if you are wanting to respond, that could be fine.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on July 11, 2007, at 18:36:12
In reply to Lou offers clarification-histofantisem, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 12:39:42
Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do....
Posted by mike lynch on July 11, 2007, at 19:54:33
In reply to Re: Lou offers clarification-histofantisem » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 11, 2007, at 18:36:12
maybe you should really get to the point with your posts. Because I can't seem to understand them
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 20:13:16
In reply to Re: Lou offers clarification-histofantisem, posted by mike lynch on July 11, 2007, at 19:54:33
> maybe you should really get to the point with your posts. Because I can't seem to understand them
Friends,
It is written here,[...I can't...understand them...]. (the posts by me)
If anyone would like clarification from me about my posts to help them understand them, they could just ask me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 20:20:46
In reply to Lou's response to to Mike's post--justasklu, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 20:13:16
> > maybe you should really get to the point with your posts. Because I can't seem to understand them
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I can't...understand them...]. (the posts by me)
> If anyone would like clarification from me about my posts to help them understand them, they could just ask me.
> LouMike,
You wrote above,[...the point...].
Could you post here which thread the point that you are interested in that is involved in your understanding? If you could, then I could examine that thread and see what the point is that I am trying to make and go to that immediatly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2007, at 6:33:12
In reply to Re: Lou offers clarification-histofantisem » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 11, 2007, at 18:36:12
> Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do....
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...Lou,...you have any hobbies? I do...].
I am unsure as to what you could be wanting to mean here in regards to if your post to me is in relation to my post concerning what Dr. Hsiung has posted. Could you offer some more information concerning your statement to me here as to what connection there is or is not as to {hobbies} and that you have hobbies in relation to the thread's subject?
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 13, 2007, at 7:14:51
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe-luhob » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2007, at 6:33:12
> > Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do....
>
> fayeroe,
> You wrote,[...Lou,...you have any hobbies? I do...].
> I am unsure as to what you could be wanting to mean here in regards to if your post to me is in relation to my post concerning what Dr. Hsiung has posted. Could you offer some more information concerning your statement to me here as to what connection there is or is not as to {hobbies} and that you have hobbies in relation to the thread's subject?
> Loudo you have hobbies?
do you read, watch t.v., exercise? i am curious about how you spend your time away from Babble?
no dissecting my post. it's extremely clear. i won't answer if you take it apart.....i asked you a clear cut question. that's all.....
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2007, at 17:10:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to fayeroe-luhob » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 13, 2007, at 7:14:51
> > > Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do....
> >
> > fayeroe,
> > You wrote,[...Lou,...you have any hobbies? I do...].
> > I am unsure as to what you could be wanting to mean here in regards to if your post to me is in relation to my post concerning what Dr. Hsiung has posted. Could you offer some more information concerning your statement to me here as to what connection there is or is not as to {hobbies} and that you have hobbies in relation to the thread's subject?
> > Lou
>
> do you have hobbies?
>
> do you read, watch t.v., exercise? i am curious about how you spend your time away from Babble?
>
> no dissecting my post. it's extremely clear. i won't answer if you take it apart.....i asked you a clear cut question. that's all.....
>
fayeroe,
Your question here seems to be important to you and maybe there is something that could be relevant to this discussion if I answered your question, so I will. You asked if I had any hobbies.
I used to collect rocks, but I had to stop.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2007, at 18:03:19
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe-Hny » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2007, at 17:10:52
> > > > Lou, I wonder if you have any hobbies? I do....
> > >
> > > fayeroe,
> > > You wrote,[...Lou,...you have any hobbies? I do...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you could be wanting to mean here in regards to if your post to me is in relation to my post concerning what Dr. Hsiung has posted. Could you offer some more information concerning your statement to me here as to what connection there is or is not as to {hobbies} and that you have hobbies in relation to the thread's subject?
> > > Lou
> >
> > do you have hobbies?
> >
> > do you read, watch t.v., exercise? i am curious about how you spend your time away from Babble?
> >
> > no dissecting my post. it's extremely clear. i won't answer if you take it apart.....i asked you a clear cut question. that's all.....
> >
> fayeroe,
> Your question here seems to be important to you and maybe there is something that could be relevant to this discussion if I answered your question, so I will. You asked if I had any hobbies.
> I used to collect rocks, but I had to stop.
> Lou
>
fayeroe,
In regards to reading, tv, exercise, I stopped tv a long time ago except for a few Bengal games.
I read a lot and walking is my exercise.
Some of my hobbie have to do with that I like to go to the mountains and the sea shore. I gave up motorcycling for safety concerns of mine, but it was a hobbie of sorts.
I hope that answers a litle or a lot of your question to me and if you like, you could post the hobbies that you said that you have.
Best regards,
Lou
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 0:43:31
In reply to Lou's reply to fayeroe-somluhob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2007, at 18:03:19
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2007, at 1:30:43
In reply to Re: posts that could lead others to feel put down, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2007, at 11:00:28
> > Dr. Hsiung and deputy AM have now given their approval to allow posts that could lead a Jew to feel put down or to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if the author prefaces the post with {I believe}.
>
> I don't consider it civil to post anything that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts.
>
> Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobFriends,
I would like to see other members post here their thinking on the matters in this thread.
The thread is about the action as to what Dr. Hsiung has posted here,his rationale, policy and such, not about the post by the member that is in question. If you would like to see that post, you could email me if you like.
DR. Hsiung has posted,[...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that {could} lead others to feel {put down}....Still, I think it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...].
I ask to hear as to what your thinking could be here about what Dr. Hsiung has posted here.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 1:53:51
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification-2?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2007, at 12:15:59
> could you clarify if I am one of those posters that you mean
Sometimes you may not feel supported by posts, but sometimes others may not feel supported by posts, either.
> if there are or are not two standards here
Do you think there are? If so, what do you think they might be?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 26, 2007, at 21:55:44
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 1:53:51
> > could you clarify if I am one of those posters that you mean
>
> Sometimes you may not feel supported by posts, but sometimes others may not feel supported by posts, either.
>
> > if there are or are not two standards here
>
> Do you think there are? If so, what do you think they might be?
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Do you think there are (two standards)?...]
For me to determine if there are two standards here, I am requesting that you reply to my requests to you that are outstanding concerning actions that you take, policy, rationales and such. Your replies could clarify what I am requesting so that I could make a determination if there are two standards or not.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:40:31
DR. Hsiung,
In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post,
[...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...].
My concerns here are related to your post on 7/22/02, which reads,
[...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported?.{But being supportive takes precedence}. My approach to civility is, {it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it's true-- is uncivil thay shouldn't post it.)...](Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
I am trying to determine if there are two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced it with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...].
The one standard as you have posted is that being supportive takes precedence and another standard that you have posted is that you think that it doesn't matter if someone really believes something, if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it.
I am trying to determine by a reply from you to me about this as to if there is one standard for the post in question and another standard for other posts of the same nature. If you could clairify as to how the statement in question [...is good...] while you have the standards for posts of that nature that it doesn't matter if one really belives something, that if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it. The post in question was not approved untill the poster modified it with the preface {I believe}, but you write that that does not matter.
Since it was then approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one belives it and that being supportive tskes precedence?
Here is a link to the post where I had brought this up on July 11.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:51:08
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-prcdnc/suprtv, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:40:31
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post,
> [...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...].
> My concerns here are related to your post on 7/22/02, which reads,
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported?.{But being supportive takes precedence}. My approach to civility is, {it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it's true-- is uncivil thay shouldn't post it.)...](Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> I am trying to determine if there are two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced it with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...].
> The one standard as you have posted is that being supportive takes precedence and another standard that you have posted is that you think that it doesn't matter if someone really believes something, if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it.
> I am trying to determine by a reply from you to me about this as to if there is one standard for the post in question and another standard for other posts of the same nature. If you could clairify as to how the statement in question [...is good...] while you have the standards for posts of that nature that it doesn't matter if one really belives something, that if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it. The post in question was not approved untill the poster modified it with the preface {I believe}, but you write that that does not matter.
> Since it was then approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one belives it and that being supportive tskes precedence?
> Here is a link to the post where I had brought this up on July 11.
> Lou PIlder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.htmlDr. Hsiung,
You have posted some things that I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean concerning your post that says something like, {it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported by some posts...].
I agree with you that there could be some posts that members will not feel supprted by that could be posted the first day the forum opened.
But I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by your posting that in reference to my concerns regarding this discussion. Could you offer more clarification as to how your statement is related or not related to my concerns about if there are or ar not two standards here?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 11:06:18
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung--continued-inev, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:51:08
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post,
> > [...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...].
> > My concerns here are related to your post on 7/22/02, which reads,
> > [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported?.{But being supportive takes precedence}. My approach to civility is, {it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it's true-- is uncivil thay shouldn't post it.)...](Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> > I am trying to determine if there are two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced it with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...].
> > The one standard as you have posted is that being supportive takes precedence and another standard that you have posted is that you think that it doesn't matter if someone really believes something, if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it.
> > I am trying to determine by a reply from you to me about this as to if there is one standard for the post in question and another standard for other posts of the same nature. If you could clairify as to how the statement in question [...is good...] while you have the standards for posts of that nature that it doesn't matter if one really belives something, that if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it. The post in question was not approved untill the poster modified it with the preface {I believe}, but you write that that does not matter.
> > Since it was then approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one belives it and that being supportive tskes precedence?
> > Here is a link to the post where I had brought this up on July 11.
> > Lou PIlder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> You have posted some things that I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean concerning your post that says something like, {it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported by some posts...].
> I agree with you that there could be some posts that members will not feel supprted by that could be posted the first day the forum opened.
> But I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by your posting that in reference to my concerns regarding this discussion. Could you offer more clarification as to how your statement is related or not related to my concerns about if there are or ar not two standards here?
> Lou Pilder
Dr. Hsiung,
You have posted something like that [...it is inevitable that some members could not feel supported by some posts...].
You have also posted your TOS and include that posts that could lead someone to feel accused and or put down are uncivil. You have also posted that the goal of the forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
The past practice shows that posts that are uncivil are notated in some way as being unapproved so that the members could have an idea in the reading of the archives as to what is acceptable to post or not here.
In the statement in question, I think that the examination of the statement could include asking as to if:
A. does the statement in question have the potential to lead a person to feel accused and or put down? And if so, would prefacing the statement with {I believe} make it approved in respect that you have posted that it doesn't matter if someone really belives something, if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it.
B. Since you also write that this includes anti-Semitic statements, we thearfore could examine the statement in question as to if it is (1) an anti-Semitic statement or not, and (2) what is the criteria that determine as to if a statement is an anti-Semitic statement or not, and (3), does the statement have the potnetial to lead a Jew to feel put down or accused, and (4) what are the criteria for determining what constitutes statement that could lead one to feel put down or accused.
C. If the statement is approved by the nature of the preface, {I believe}, does this mean that any statement that is prefaced with {I believe} is approved? If so, then could someone post here statements from {...Mien Kamph...] and say that that is what they believe and thearfore it is approved to post here? If so, could there thearfore then be two standards here, for I can not post as approved by you the foundation of my faith, that my god has revealed Himself to me and has given me a commandment that I XXX (the foundation of Judaism).
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2007, at 13:28:49
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-prcdnc/suprtv, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:40:31
> In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post ...
Thanks for the reminders. From now on, however, please post them as follow-ups to the outstanding requests and not as new threads. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 9:55:53
In reply to Re: reminders concerning outstanding requests, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2007, at 13:28:49
> > In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post ...
>
> Thanks for the reminders. From now on, however, please post them as follow-ups to the outstanding requests and not as new threads. Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
In your reply to me above, the reply to me was linked to a post by me that is following your procedure where you writw that if someone wants to know your rationale for something to just ask and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take, policy and rules and such.
In the post that your reply is linked to , I had requested on July 11 to know about your policy, rationale, rules and actions and such you take relevant to that you have posted the following:
A.[...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti_Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't fell supported by particular posts...]
B. You posted on 7-22-02,
[...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? >But being supportive takes precedence<. My approach to civility is, |it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it is true--if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it| (Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
I am trying to determine if there are or are not two standards here. For the action that you have taken in regards to posting that {you think it is good} for a post to be prefaced with {I believe} after it was unapproved and then became approved by the allowing of the member to modify the unapproved version of the statement with {I believe} is having me a request for a want for infomation concerning your rationale and action you have taken and policy and rules here.
The request that I have is in the last statement by me in the post that you linked to here,
[...Since it was approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one believes it and that{...being supportive takes place...} (per you post on 7/22/02)
Here is the link to a request concerning this on July 11
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 13:34:20
In reply to Lou's reply/reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-tksprc » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 9:55:53
> > > In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post ...
> >
> > Thanks for the reminders. From now on, however, please post them as follow-ups to the outstanding requests and not as new threads. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In your reply to me above, the reply to me was linked to a post by me that is following your procedure where you writw that if someone wants to know your rationale for something to just ask and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take, policy and rules and such.
> In the post that your reply is linked to , I had requested on July 11 to know about your policy, rationale, rules and actions and such you take relevant to that you have posted the following:
> A.[...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti_Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't fell supported by particular posts...]
> B. You posted on 7-22-02,
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? >But being supportive takes precedence<. My approach to civility is, |it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it is true--if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it| (Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> I am trying to determine if there are or are not two standards here. For the action that you have taken in regards to posting that {you think it is good} for a post to be prefaced with {I believe} after it was unapproved and then became approved by the allowing of the member to modify the unapproved version of the statement with {I believe} is having me a request for a want for infomation concerning your rationale and action you have taken and policy and rules here.
> The request that I have is in the last statement by me in the post that you linked to here,
> [...Since it was approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one believes it and that{...being supportive takes place...} (per you post on 7/22/02)
> Here is the link to a request concerning this on July 11
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
>The correction is that the last word in {...being supportive takes (..)...} is {...being supportive takes (precedence)...}
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 23:41:59
In reply to Lou's reply/reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-tksprc » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 9:55:53
> could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it
It feels to me like a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2007, at 18:53:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 23:41:59
> > could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it
>
> It feels to me like a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post.
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In what you wrote above, let us look at the whole statement that what you wrote came from:
[...Since it was approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it {keeping in mind} what you have posted concerning if one believes it and that {...being supportive takes precedence...}posted by you on 7/22/02.
What you posted on 7/22/02 was:
[...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal of course is that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? >But being supportive takes precednce<. My approach to civility is,|it doesn't matter if someone really belives something--or to some extent even if it is true--if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it|(Robert Hsiung 7-22-02).
I went on to ask:
I am trying to determine if there are or are not two standards here. For the action that you have taken in regards to posting that {you think it is good} for a post to be prefaced with {I believe} after it was unapproved and then became approved by allowing the member to modify the unapproved statement with {I belive} is having me a request for a want for infomation concerning your rationale and action you have taken and policy and rules here.
Then I went on and asked you in your reply to keep in mind your statement,{...being supportive takes precedence...]and posted the link my requests to you on July 11;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
In your reply to me here, you write,[...it {feels} to me as a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post...]
The grammatical interpretation of you statement could involve your use of {feel}. You have posted in your TOS that you use the standard of being {fair}. One of the generally accepted meanings of {fair} is that what is done is {impartial} and free from self interest and conforming to established rules. One of the generally accepted meanings of {feel} is that if something is done as to that a person {feels} it, that {sentiment} is used or {affection}which is different from {reasoned conclusion}
I do not know what meanings you are intending in the use of the words, {fair} and {feel} here.I am requesting that you clarify if you are using one of the generally accepted memanings of {fair} and {feel} that I have mentioned here, or some other meaning of the words. If they are of a different meaning that you are using them, could you post here what those meanings are? If you could , then I could hve the opportunity to respond accordingly. Let us consider iff one can have a statement that is not approved here to be made approved by prefacing it with I believe, and you write that it doesn't matter if one belives it. Could one post here a statement by Hitler that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused or put down by them prefacing the statement with I believe? I am trying to determuine if there are two standards here or not because if I was to post that my God has revealed to me[... a commandment {that I} XXX(the foundation of Judaism)...],which I believe, that has been determined by you to be not approved here, yet the statement in question that you arrproved by allowing it to be prefaced with {I believe} is a foundation of Christianity. Could you clarify this for me here?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2007, at 20:59:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2007, at 23:41:59
> > could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it
>
> It feels to me like a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post.
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
At this time, I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such. I am leaving the forum as of now and I wish the members the best and I ask that members do not email me.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2008, at 11:01:37
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-farfel » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2007, at 18:53:57
> > > could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it
> >
> > It feels to me like a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post.
> >
> > Bob
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> In what you wrote above, let us look at the whole statement that what you wrote came from:
> [...Since it was approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it {keeping in mind} what you have posted concerning if one believes it and that {...being supportive takes precedence...}posted by you on 7/22/02.
> What you posted on 7/22/02 was:
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal of course is that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? >But being supportive takes precednce<. My approach to civility is,|it doesn't matter if someone really belives something--or to some extent even if it is true--if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it|(Robert Hsiung 7-22-02).
> I went on to ask:
> I am trying to determine if there are or are not two standards here. For the action that you have taken in regards to posting that {you think it is good} for a post to be prefaced with {I believe} after it was unapproved and then became approved by allowing the member to modify the unapproved statement with {I belive} is having me a request for a want for infomation concerning your rationale and action you have taken and policy and rules here.
> Then I went on and asked you in your reply to keep in mind your statement,{...being supportive takes precedence...]and posted the link my requests to you on July 11;
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
> In your reply to me here, you write,[...it {feels} to me as a reasonable balance between support and freedom to post...]
> The grammatical interpretation of you statement could involve your use of {feel}. You have posted in your TOS that you use the standard of being {fair}. One of the generally accepted meanings of {fair} is that what is done is {impartial} and free from self interest and conforming to established rules. One of the generally accepted meanings of {feel} is that if something is done as to that a person {feels} it, that {sentiment} is used or {affection}which is different from {reasoned conclusion}
> I do not know what meanings you are intending in the use of the words, {fair} and {feel} here.I am requesting that you clarify if you are using one of the generally accepted memanings of {fair} and {feel} that I have mentioned here, or some other meaning of the words. If they are of a different meaning that you are using them, could you post here what those meanings are? If you could , then I could hve the opportunity to respond accordingly. Let us consider iff one can have a statement that is not approved here to be made approved by prefacing it with I believe, and you write that it doesn't matter if one belives it. Could one post here a statement by Hitler that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused or put down by them prefacing the statement with I believe? I am trying to determuine if there are two standards here or not because if I was to post that my God has revealed to me[... a commandment {that I} XXX(the foundation of Judaism)...],which I believe, that has been determined by you to be not approved here, yet the statement in question that you arrproved by allowing it to be prefaced with {I believe} is a foundation of Christianity. Could you clarify this for me here?
> Lou PIlder
>Mr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminde procedure, the above.
Lou Pilder
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.