![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 61 to 85 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2008, at 13:46:32
In reply to Jumping to conclusions, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 8:37:38
In all fairness though Dinah, I think it really means a minority opinion.
Posted by Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 14:09:25
In reply to Re: Jumping to conclusions, posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2008, at 13:46:32
In all fairness, Sigismund, I do not agree.
"to judge a situation without enough information about it"
Often at Babble the information lacking is intent. So for example, I recently heard from my dog's breeder who asked how things were going. I responded telling her that a test had come up positive, and she could have had reason for being angry with that. She didn't respond. I wrote her later telling her the test was a false positive. She didn't respond. I got a bit nervous and a month or so later dropped her a line, and still got no response. It seemed like a logical conclusion to me that she wasn't answering because she was angry. Later I called her and found out she wasn't at all angry, she was actually pleased with me, but that she'd been really busy and gotten behind with her emails.
Had I at any point along the way posted *my* truth, that she wasn't responding to me because she was angry about the test results, I'd be jumping to a conclusion. At the time it seemed like the logical conclusion and I was sure I was right. But I didn't have all the information. If I had posted that I had written to her several times and she hadn't responded, that would be the facts. But my information stopped there.
Intent isn't the only missing information that is applicable at Babble, but it's a common one.
I would also have to disagree that minority opinions are not tolerated on Babble, if that's what you're saying. Dr. Bob tolerates all opinions on Babble, so long as they are stated in accordance with the civility guidelines. And if you meant that statements critical of Administration are not tolerated, I would disagree with that as well. Which is not to say that you are incorrect. I simply come to a different conclusion.
Posted by Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 14:40:09
In reply to Re: Jumping to conclusions » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 14:09:25
Well, I suppose there are some opinions that cannot be adequately restated to fit within the civility guidelines and may not be appropriate for sharing at Babble per site guidelines.
Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2008, at 16:07:06
In reply to Blocked for a week » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 8:32:05
>> All one has to do is read some of Luther's or Calvin's writings, to see how antiSemitic they were.
I was thinking of this.
I've never read Calvin or Luther, but Luther at any rate is famous (in history books) for at least some antisemitic remarks.
I don't think there is much point in judging the past by the standards of the present, but it might be true to say that Christianity at that time was, by and large, antisemitic. This is what you might expect from a belief system that had fissured and was at war with the other part, with witches, peasants, and whoever else.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 13:31:22
In reply to Blocked for a week » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 8:32:05
> > All one has to do is read some of Luther's or Calvin's writings, to see how antiSemitic they were.
>
> > Methinks Jesus wants His reputation back...!
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others, including Lutherans, Calvinists, or other Christians to feel accused (for example, of antisemetism) or put down.
>
> > Why is the real issue swept under the proverbial rug, while a petty side-issue is hyper-focused on? Clever tactic, if it weren't so poorly over-used.
>
> I'd also like to remind you, when you return, not to post anything that could lead posters who happen to be deputies to feel accused or put down.
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error. Please also contact him directly with any complaints about deputy action/inaction. He *is* around. It might help to receive a reply to put "Babble" and maybe "deputy complaint" in the subject line.
>
> You've been reminded to be civil already in this thread, so I'm going to have to block you from posting for one week.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
> Also, I did respond to your notification, but I didn't get a copy of it either so there may have been a glitch. I'll resend that information.Dinah,
I am unsure as to some aspects of your post to Dena here.
In,[...don't post what could lead Lutherans, Calvanists and other Christians to feel put down/accused...]
Dena's post was about,[...how they {were}...](the writings in the past). The past tense is about those writings in the past so I am unsure as to what your rationale(s) could be to post here that the people that you refer to could be led to feel accused/put down about what was in the past. If you could post here your rationale(s) for posting that the people in question could be led to feel put down/accused when they read that past writings were of the nature in question, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. Also, in order for anyone to make that conclusion that they could feel accused/put down, could it not be that the people that you are referring could be contacted first to have the determination made by them and if you are the one feeling accused/put down when you read it, could you post then your rationale for such? If not, could you post your rationale(s) for that here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
I am also requesting that the sanction to Dena concerning the parts in question that have a want for infomation for, be redacted untill you post your rationale(s) so that myself and others could post here their response to your rationale(s) as to if it does or does not substantiate that what Dena posted as in question could lead or not lead anyone to feel put down or accused if they read what Dena posted about the historical writings in question, for it is my deep conviction that the statement by Dena is not a charge to anyone alive, for the writings in question were written around the period of 500 years ago.
As far as you posting about a {glitch), I am unsure as to what a glitch could be here, so could you elaborate on what a {glitch} could be as to what you think happened that could cause Dena not to receive a reply to her notification?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2008, at 13:34:52
In reply to Lou's request for rationales- » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 13:31:22
Dr. Bob is aware of the deputy action. If he wishes to revise it, he can.
I wrote a reply to Dena. It apparently was not received by Dena. I don't know what happened. I resent it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 14:18:45
In reply to Re: Lou's request for rationales-, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2008, at 13:34:52
> Dr. Bob is aware of the deputy action. If he wishes to revise it, he can.
>
> I wrote a reply to Dena. It apparently was not received by Dena. I don't know what happened. I resent it.Dinah,
You wrote,[...is aware of..actions...].
I am unsure if he is aware of or not aware of your {rationale(s)} that I have requested as to what you used that determines that those in question could be led to feel put down/accused by that Dena posted about writings from around 500 years ago.
If I was to know you rationale(s) used here, then I could have the opportunity to respond here accordingly and if Mr. Hsiung posts here of your rationale(s) used in question here, if he knows of them, then I could have the opportunity to post my response here.
I am asking that if you made him known of your rationales that you also either post the rationales requested here or ask him to post them here for you, or some other way that myself and the interested members could be made known of the rationale(s) that you used here that I have requested to know of. I base this in part that the TOS here as I understand the TOS is that the administration will post their rationale(s) used if members ask them to do so. That is one reason why I am asking that the sanction to Dena for what is in question be redacted until the rationale(s) requested be posted, either by you or Mr. Hsiung or someone else that you ask to quote you.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2008, at 15:50:36
In reply to Lou's request for rationales- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 14:18:45
I don't consider that the age of the writing is the criteria for deciding whether something is uncivil. There are currently members of denominations established by Calvin and Luther, just as there are those who believe in the Bible or the Torah or the Koran. Dr. Bob has applied the guidelines to party leaders of current political parties, because he did not wish those who support those leaders to feel accused or put down. I consider this analogous.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 21:00:21
In reply to Blocked for a week » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 28, 2008, at 8:32:05
> > All one has to do is read some of Luther's or Calvin's writings, to see how antiSemitic they were.
>
> > Methinks Jesus wants His reputation back...!
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others, including Lutherans, Calvinists, or other Christians to feel accused (for example, of antisemetism) or put down.
>
> > Why is the real issue swept under the proverbial rug, while a petty side-issue is hyper-focused on? Clever tactic, if it weren't so poorly over-used.
>
> I'd also like to remind you, when you return, not to post anything that could lead posters who happen to be deputies to feel accused or put down.
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error. Please also contact him directly with any complaints about deputy action/inaction. He *is* around. It might help to receive a reply to put "Babble" and maybe "deputy complaint" in the subject line.
>
> You've been reminded to be civil already in this thread, so I'm going to have to block you from posting for one week.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
> Also, I did respond to your notification, but I didn't get a copy of it either so there may have been a glitch. I'll resend that information.Dinah,
I can not see a rationale in your reply to me for sanctioning Dena for what she posted above concerning the writings of Luther and Calvin.
Here is a link to your reply to me in question
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081228/msgs/871321.html
In the reply, what could be relevant to me there is:
A.that there are guidlines for party leaders
B.because Mr. Hsiung did not want those that support those leaders to feel accused or put down.
My request has been for you to post your rationale(s) here that you used to sanction Dena for what she posted concerning the writings of Luther and Calvin in the 1500s, in that you write now, I guess, that what Dena posted could lead {followers} of Luther and Calvin to feel accused or put down.
I think that if you are talking for yourself a judgment could be made, and that to make a judgment about what others could read that could lead them to feel accused or put down could be determined by asking them if when they read such if they feel that way and why they do and giving the criteria that they use to say such. Have you asked any Christians if they feel put down when they read the writings of Luther or Calvin that are the subject of what Dena posted? Are you aware that the writings of Luther concerning Jews have been repudiated by the Lutheran Church about 50 years ago?
I do not know any Christians that feel accused or put down when they read such or support what they purport. Does anyone, including you, here know of any that do?
I am requesting that you post here those guidlines that are for party leaders that you mentioned and then I could have the opportunity to see if they do or do not apply to this situation and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2008, at 21:11:07
In reply to Lou's reply/request-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2008, at 21:00:21
I've done my best, Lou, to be helpful. Perhaps Dr. Bob or another deputy could help you further.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2008, at 21:49:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects-uaintpsein » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on December 27, 2008, at 18:19:22
> >I like what Al Jolson said.
>
> What did Al Jolson say, Lou?we saw what he said. But here is what Chuck Berry said...
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suSMTy8PVqY
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcNXBJs1HY
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 31, 2008, at 8:09:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects-uaintpsein » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2008, at 21:49:36
> > >I like what Al Jolson said.
> >
> > What did Al Jolson say, Lou?
>
> we saw what he said. But here is what Chuck Berry said...
> Lou
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suSMTy8PVqY
> or
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcNXBJs1HY
>
Here is what Bob said
Lou
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ced8o50G9kg/bob_dylan_blowin_in_the_wind/
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2009, at 20:29:07
In reply to Lou's response to aspects-what Bob said » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on December 31, 2008, at 8:09:10
> > > >I like what Al Jolson said.
> > >
> > > What did Al Jolson say, Lou?
> >
> > we saw what he said. But here is what Chuck Berry said...
> > Lou
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suSMTy8PVqY
> > or
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcNXBJs1HY
> >
> Here is what Bob said
> Lou
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ced8o50G9kg/bob_dylan_blowin_in_the_wind/
>Here is what Dion said
Lou
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=24912712
Posted by Sigismund on January 5, 2009, at 1:32:37
In reply to Let's hear from Dion, posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2009, at 20:29:07
but before we do, here is one from me.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LNafWbdriW0
Being good can be real as well.
All the best
Sig
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2009, at 2:10:59
In reply to Let's keep it administrative here » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on January 5, 2009, at 1:32:37
> Let's keep it administrative here
Here's a link for other posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20081222/msgs/872464.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2009, at 9:54:41
In reply to Re: Lou's request for rationales-, posted by Dinah on December 29, 2008, at 13:34:52
> Dr. Bob is aware of the deputy action. If he wishes to revise it, he can.
>
> I wrote a reply to Dena. It apparently was not received by Dena. I don't know what happened. I resent it.You wrote,[...I resent it (a reply concerning a notification)...]
I am unsure as to if the reply has been recieved for I do not see a post from her that she has recived one. Could you forward your reply to her to me, if you do not have a confirmation that she has received it? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 17:40:41
In reply to Lou's request for discovery-ptuprstp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2009, at 9:54:41
We would not be allowed to send you someone else's mail.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2009, at 19:57:35
In reply to Re: Lou's request for discovery-ptuprstp » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 17:40:41
> We would not be allowed to send you someone else's mail.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. BobIn this situation, the member's last post concerning this says that she has not received such. Could you send it to me if the member still contends that she has not received a reply if the member posts here that I have permission from her for you to do so?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 20:05:08
In reply to Lou's request for discovery of rulling » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2009, at 19:57:35
If you get Dr. Bob's permission, it's ok with me.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 20:09:01
In reply to Re: Lou's request for discovery of rulling » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 20:05:08
That is to say, it is not really up to me to decide.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2009, at 8:33:06
In reply to Re: Lou's request for discovery of rulling, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2009, at 20:09:01
> That is to say, it is not really up to me to decide.
This is interesting. A member posts that a reply was not received for a notification and you post that you sent it and do not know why it has not been received. Mr. Hsiung has posted that one receiving a reply for a notification is [...to consider a reply to come from all of us...].
Being that what that could mean, if there is still not a confirmation from the member of receiving a reply concerning a notification, would any of the other deputies here be willing to send the notification to that member? Or, if the notification was sent only through, lets say, the bmail, could the email be tried if known or vice versa? If you could either do thhat or not, or something else,, then I could assess in some way the degree of willingness here for administrators.
Lou
Posted by Dena on January 17, 2009, at 1:11:46
In reply to Lou's request for discovery-ptuprstp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2009, at 9:54:41
> > Dr. Bob is aware of the deputy action. If he wishes to revise it, he can.
> >
> > I wrote a reply to Dena. It apparently was not received by Dena. I don't know what happened. I resent it.
>
> You wrote,[...I resent it (a reply concerning a notification)...]
> I am unsure as to if the reply has been recieved for I do not see a post from her that she has recived one. Could you forward your reply to her to me, if you do not have a confirmation that she has received it? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
Sorry for a delay here -- been off living life elsewhere.I have NOT received a reply.
I do receive notices about posts here on PB, and I receive babblemail ... but I haven't received a reply to my notification.
Just wanted to make that clear...
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 17, 2009, at 2:38:24
In reply to Re: Lou's request for discovery-ptuprstp, posted by Dena on January 17, 2009, at 1:11:46
> I have NOT received a reply.
>
> I do receive notices about posts here on PB, and I receive babblemail ... but I haven't received a reply to my notification.The replies Dinah sent - that any deputy sends - were by Babblemail. I saw a copy of the last one.
I'd guess 99% of the time this problem happens when messages are going into your spam/bulk folder, or you have changed your email address recently and no longer use the one you registered with on PB. If those things don't apply, we will have to alert Dr. Bob to check on some sort of technical glitch. It's baffling since you have recently been receiving Babblemail from other posters. Technology....grrr....
Posted by Dena on January 17, 2009, at 16:50:05
In reply to Non-receipt of replies » Dena, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on January 17, 2009, at 2:38:24
Well then, I fell into that elusive 1%.
I've not ever changed my email address; I've had the same one for 10 years. I'm on the computer every day, for many hours a day. I don't miss anything.
I check my spam folder several times a day (and have an automatic notification when anything enters my spam folder).
No response to my notification has come to me.
So: Try again?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by gardenergirl on January 17, 2009, at 19:11:37
In reply to Re: Non-receipt of replies, posted by Dena on January 17, 2009, at 16:50:05
Curious that someone would receive babblemails from others but not from a deputy replying to a notification. That would be a really, really odd and quite specific glitch.
gg
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.