![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 61 to 85 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:38:08
In reply to Sure Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 14, 2005, at 12:49:44
> Here:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001231/msgs/50808.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19990401/msgs/4647.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/373760.html
>AM,
Thank you for the links. However, I think that there are differences.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:40:29
In reply to Re: Portage's reply to Lou-sfgdjkher, posted by portage on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:24
portage,
You wrote,[...I want to know more about you...]
What would you like to know?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:47:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 11:39:45
> I am requesting that if anyone is going to reply to this thread that they consider the following:
> A. Is it civil for Dr. Hsiung to suggest to others on this forum that they [...not read...] anyone's posts, or just my posts, because the content of the posts could cause them to reply to be uncivil here?Yes, Lou, it would be civil for Dr Hsiung to suggest that some people not read posts written by some other people. It would even be civil for Dr Hsiung to suggest that certain specific people here not read *your* posts if they are so upset by them that they may not be able to respond within the civility guidelines of this site.
But, Lou? That's not what Dr Bob did. Dr Bob reminded someone that, if certain posts are likely to upset him/her, he/she *does not have to read them.* That's a good reminder, in my opinion.
And Lou? Here's something I really hope that you'll consider when you read this: Dr Bob was not suggesting that *anyone* here boycott any particular poster. Dr Bob was suggesting that someone might be able to avoid emotional turmoil, hurt feelings, worsening symptoms of their disorder, upset, etc, by not reading certain posts that might be predicably triggering. Remember, Lou, your actions -- just like everyone else's -- have consequences. Sometimes, Lou, the consequences of your actions might just be deeply upsetting for someone else. Has that ever entered your mind?
> B. How does one determine for themselves if a post will cause them to reply and be uncivil here?That, Lou, will be different for every person in the world. We could probably all make some suggestions, but what works for one person won't necessarily work for someone else. That's what the phrase "Your mileage will vary" is all about. There are no hard and fast rules to apply.
> C. Could Dr. Hsiung's "remarks",([...do not read...]} have been left out in his statement in question and perhaps replaced by:
> 1.when you read someone's post that you have determined to be of content that you do not agree with, I am reminding , or suggesting, that you consider that different points of view here are encouraged and that your reply is to be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum even if your views are different...]?
> 2. when you read someone's posts here,
> 3. please do not boycott any poster's posts
> 4. if you see a poster's name as the poster,
> 5. other good and just alternatives
> Lou
>No, Lou, I don't think that Dr Bob's suggestion could have been replaced by any of your alternatives. You want to know why? Because what Dr Bob wrote was clear, concise, and not all that open to misunderstanding or interpretation. That counts, for an administrator. Sometimes, adding in all the specifiers and qualifiers that might make you satisfied would destroy the meaning of what one wanted to communicate. And you know what else? Even if one were to add in every modifier, qualifier, and specifier that one could think of, someone who was intent on finding a flaw could still do so.
I hope I'll be able to stay out of this after saying this, Lou. This is something I'm saying as one person, one human being, to another -- from me to you, Lou, personally:
Some of the things you have written, in this thread and in others, has very deeply offended me, and some of it has hurt my feelings. That may not be what you intend, Lou, in your posts, but it is one of the consequences of your actions. You may have noticed that, despite my hurt or offended feelings, I have not requested that you cease to express yourself. The word that best describes the reason I have not done so is "RESPECT." I respect your right to express yourself, so I don't tell you that you're wrong to do so; I don't ask you to stop; I don't complain to Dr Bob that your words have hurt me, or caused offense, or damaged me in some other way. That's because I respect the right of individuals to express their views, without imposing the standards of others to that expression.
By my actions, I have shown you respect, Lou. I am asking you to consider, when posting your myriad "requests for determination", whether doing so is respectful to others here.
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:56:04
In reply to Lou's reply to AuntieMel-dif » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 13:38:08
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/373760.html
> >
>
> AM,
> Thank you for the links. However, I think that there are differences.
> Lou
>I would like to know where you see the difference between what Dr Bob wrote in the thread you're questioning and in the post referenced above?
"> I don't think "Don't read posts by posters that bother you" is good universal advice. Perhaps you should change it a bit.
It's just an alternative approach to keep in mind? I guess a little more flexible would be: It may be better sometimes not to read posts by certain posters.
Bob "
That sounds like an awfully general suggestion there -- "sometimes" it "might" be better not to read posts by certain posters? What hidden message can be found in that?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 12:43:47
Tamar,
You wrote, [...I see it as {self-censorship}...].
I am requesting that others here that are interested in posting to this thread to consider if {self-censorship} can be {suggested} by the host-moderator of a mental-health community, or if self-censorship needs to be voluntary, without administrative suggestion, to really be considered as self-censorship.
I am also requesting that others here that are interested in replying to this thread to consider the weight of a suggestion by the authority host-moderator of a mental-health forum to [...do not read...] and its possible implications as that the posts suggested to not read could cause the reader to act in an uncivil manner. Also, I am asking others here to consider if it is justifiable for anyone of a mental- health community to associate in any way to a poster that another poster's post could cause them some type of emotional state as to act in an uncivil manner.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-slfcnsr? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?
B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?
Lou
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 14:29:20
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
> I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
> A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?Maybe this is irrelevant, but you've quoted another poster to these boards, Lou, rather than Dr Bob. Tamar wrote what you're quoting. Or are you asking whether we think that Tamar is trying to say that people here need protection from you?
> B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?
> LouLou, has it crossed your mind that some people here really do need to be protected from you? That some people on these boards -- boards set up for people with varying mental and emotional disorders, let's not forget -- might be so psychologically fragile, so emotionally vulnerable, that they do need to be protected from reading some of what you write?
Let me say something here that is not strictly relevant to this particular thread, although you did bring it up in one post here: I, personally, am very deeply offended and upset when you make an analogy between what happens on this board and what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. That bothers me a very, very great deal, for very personal reasons, Lou. I find it profoundly disrespectful, and when I read the posts in which you make those analogies, Lou, I experience both rage and grief: rage, because you would dishonor so many people who suffered so much beyond human imagination by equating that suffering with anything that is merely written; and grief for all the people I grew up with and loved and whose memories I still love and cherish WHO ACTUALLY SUFFERED THAT NIGHTMARE!
Lou, do you really think that intentions do not matter? Sure, we all know which road uses good intentions as paving materials, but Lou? I've been part of this community for seven years now, and I've only seen a handful of people here who INTENTIONALLY write something hurtful.
Let me ask you this, Lou: when you write your analogies about the Holocaust, do you INTEND to cause me pain?
Or do you think that I should ask Dr Bob to look at what you've written and see if he should slap your wrist for it?
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 14:57:21
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-slfcnsr? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
Hi Lou,
> You wrote, [...I see it as {self-censorship}...].
> I am requesting that others here that are interested in posting to this thread to consider if {self-censorship} can be {suggested} by the host-moderator of a mental-health community, or if self-censorship needs to be voluntary, without administrative suggestion, to really be considered as self-censorship.I think it is voluntary even if it’s suggested by Dr Bob. He’s not insisting on anything, so it remains a matter for the reader to decide whether to censor himself/herself.
> I am also requesting that others here that are interested in replying to this thread to consider the weight of a suggestion by the authority host-moderator of a mental-health forum to [...do not read...] and its possible implications as that the posts suggested to not read could cause the reader to act in an uncivil manner.
I don’t know how much weight the suggestion can carry. It’s not a command and even if it were I don’t know whether it would be enforceable. I don’t know how the software works, but I doubt Dr Bob can prevent people reading posts from particular posters. I think it is likely that it could be understood as a good piece of advice to anyone who has trouble keeping their responses to certain posters within the civility guidelines.
> Also, I am asking others here to consider if it is justifiable for anyone of a mental- health community to associate in any way to a poster that another poster's post could cause them some type of emotional state as to act in an uncivil manner.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. May I rephrase? It seems to me that you’re asking whether it is justifiable for Dr Bob (or me or anyone else here) to suggest to a member of the community that someone’s posts could trigger them and then they might respond in an uncivil manner.
If that’s your question, this is my answer: I think it is justifiable for anyone in the community (including Dr Bob) to suggest that a reader might consider whether a certain person’s posts are triggering them, and whether it might be best not to read posts that might trigger them to the extent that they reply in an uncivil manner. And that might involve not reading a particular person’s posts.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 15:19:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-othralt » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 13:47:13
Friends, ,
It is written here,[...Dr. Bob reminded someone...*does not have to read them*...].
I am requesting that if you are going to post to this thread that you consider what Dr. Hsiung wrote in the following and ask yourself if there is a difference from what is written here.
[...Sometimes it is more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply or even {not to read} in the first place...].
Lou
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 16:24:41
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 14:15:09
Hi Lou,
> It is written here,[...as a way of protecting myself (...not read....}...].
> I am requesting to those that are thinking of posting to this thread to consider the following:
> A. Is there the potential for one to have the potential to think that Dr. Hsiung's statement in question could lead one to think that some here need protection from me? Or that my posts could cause harm to someone?
> B. If so, what do they need to be protected from?Sorry if I didn’t explain myself clearly. I hope these answers will help:
A. I don’t think so. However:
B. I do think that people might want to protect themselves from the discomfort of their emotional reactions to the things that are triggered when they read aspects of posts that trigger them.Here’s an example. I didn’t reply to your post about the Nazis boycotting Jewish businesses because when I read your post I interpreted it as making a comparison between posting strategies on Babble and Nazi strategies against Jewish people. That might not have been what you intended, but that was how I read it.
I am not ignorant about the strategies the Nazis used against Jewish people. I knew about the boycotting of Jewish businesses, and other strategies. The thought that posting strategies on Babble could be compared with the abomination of the Holocaust was a thought I found very emotionally troubling. I don’t know if you intended me to have that thought, but I had it anyway. I felt shocked and outraged when I thought of a comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany.
I felt especially shocked because I do not believe that members of this community are stigmatizing other members on the basis of religious or cultural identity. Therefore I felt that the comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany was inappropriate. I realise, of course, that the comparison was based on my interpretation of your post, and that you did not explicitly make that comparison. However, those were my thoughts and feelings on reading your post, whether or not you intended me to have them.
So I decided not to reply because I thought my reply might transgress the civility guidelines.
At that point I could have thought that your future posts had the potential to trigger me. I could have decided to stop reading your posts for a while until I felt less emotionally vulnerable.
If I’d made that decision it would have been to protect myself from the sorts of feelings I experienced when I read your post about the boycott of Jewish businesses. I don’t believe I need any protection from you as a person.
Of course, I could also have asked you to clarify what you were driving at, but at the time I read the post I was feeling too emotional to think of asking you that. My own interpretation was so emotionally disturbing that I wasn’t able to think rationally about the possibility of alternative interpretations.
I realise I’ve been quite forthright here, and I hope you understand that it’s in the interests of communication. I hope you don’t mind that I picked your own post as an example; I chose it only because it was in this same thread.
For what it’s worth, my feelings and thoughts about the post have changed a little. I am still upset at the idea of a comparison between Babble and Nazi Germany, even though that comparison may be one of my own making. However, I am also concerned at the idea that you might feel stigmatized on the basis of your religious or cultural identity. I realise that this idea too may be one of my own making, and perhaps you do not feel stigmatized. If you are willing to talk about your feelings, I’d be interested to hear what you have to say.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 16:44:14
In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-msqut?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 15:19:04
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 16:47:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-vrusmodl? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 16:24:41
Tamar,
You wrote,[...concerned that you may feel stigmatized...].
Here is Dr. Hsiung's statement in question
[...sometimes it is more conducive to "civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply, or even not to read in the first place...].
This was written to a poster that read my post.
I feel that there is the potential for some others to think that there is the potential for the statement in question to mean that ;
A. People here will be more civil if they,[...not read in the first place...]. Do you see any potential for any acssociation with "civic harmony and welfare" with ,perhaps, reading what I post?
Now the Nazis stood in front of the stores owned by jews and said [...don't buy from them...]. I have nothing to sell so no one can say don't by from Lou Pilder here. But the only thing that I do have here is what I write here. [...not to read in the firat place...]? Do you think that there is not the potential for some oehters her to think that they could be be harmed by reading Lou's posts here after reading Dr. Hsiung's statement in question?
Lou
Posted by Nickengland on July 14, 2005, at 16:49:20
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr./ Hsiung's reply to Lou-shun? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 9:40:31
>Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place.
>Bob
Hello Lou,
From reading all the posts you have written regarding this matter I see that you feel there is a potential that in fact this was directly aimed at you etc etc etc (I've read the whole thread)
I personally think perhaps both aspects (your point of view and Dr Bob's point of view are correct) of this whole thread. Your point of view being, the fact that maybe indirectly this message was about you, as well as being in a general format.
When Dr Bob said
>Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place.
I can understand this completely. The reason being from when we had our last little discussion....You suggested to me that I look through the archives to see who actually supports your posts. This I did. I actually only turned up a small number of posts through the google search, so I looked through the archives from the dated topics at the top of the pages.
If I remember correctly I was looking back about 2-3 years ago. Maybe 2002 to be correct when you first actually joined under the name of Lou Pilder and lou pilder without the capitals. (if I remember correctly)
I read your very first posts and many, many more after that with great interest. I saw all of the information about how people have to unlock the "7 gates" and how you think psychiatric drugs are evil. The way you think through the "sounds of music" and that you are a former maths teacher. I also read how you used to talk about religion quite alot of the time in soical/babble and so because of your posts (i think) this is the reason why the "faith" board was opened.
You used to post quite abit in babble/medications back then. Now back at time you used to get blocked quite abit yourself and recieve a fair few PBC's....
Now at the same time back then and up until this present day...There have been a very large amount of people who have recieved PBC because they have spoken/replied to your posts. People (from what I have seen and read) have also left babble and been blocked who engaged in discussion with you.
Perhaps because there are a high volume of people, who when reply to your messages, or get involved in a discussion with yourself - a large amount of these people have ended up with a PBC and so have not been able to remain civil.
So in conclusion when Dr Bob said what he did, maybe he was going on past experience. To prevent more people getting PBC's and perhaps blocks. In this way he was promoting civility, I think.
Kind regards
Nick
Ps If you want me to post any archives to support what I have said, I will be willing to do that.
Posted by thuso on July 14, 2005, at 16:56:29
In reply to Where there's life, there's potential » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 14:29:20
> Let me say something here that is not strictly relevant to this particular thread, although you did bring it up in one post here: I, personally, am very deeply offended and upset when you make an analogy between what happens on this board and what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. That bothers me a very, very great deal, for very personal reasons, Lou. I find it profoundly disrespectful, and when I read the posts in which you make those analogies, Lou, I experience both rage and grief: rage, because you would dishonor so many people who suffered so much beyond human imagination by equating that suffering with anything that is merely written; and grief for all the people I grew up with and loved and whose memories I still love and cherish WHO ACTUALLY SUFFERED THAT NIGHTMARE!
>Thank you Racer for bringing this up! It's also been making me mad. I've been following this thread, but as soon as I see Lou write Holocaust or or Nazi in his post, I skip it and go to the next one. Otherwise, I'd be starting a fight because it's been bugging me soooooo much. I am extremely offended and annoyed by his comparisons. It's safer for me not to read a post than to read it and then react in the wrong way.
Lou...the way some posts by you in this thread have caused me to react is exactly why Dr. Bob's suggestion was right on. He wasn't referring to you specifically when he wrote that, but in this case I'm able to apply his advice. In fact, I skip posts whenever I see certain words that I know will bring out the fighter in me, so don't think I'm doing this to only you. It's not a personal thing.
But I do have one question Lou. Why have you not been responding to Racer in his last few posts? He's asked you some specific questions and you have yet to respond to one of them. I'm requesting that you do answer him. Will you please do that? :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 19:20:21
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-pic, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 9:20:43
> Friends,
> I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
> [...Could Dr. Hsiung's post in question here have any potential for anyone to think that he is suggesting to either one poster or the general forum that they do not read a post that has my name as the poster?...]
> [...Could you resaerch the causes of the Nazi Holocaust and see how boycotting jewish businesses fosterd to stigmatise jews and arrouse hatred toward them?...]
> [...could you look at the following link...?]
> Lou
> http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/11286.htmFriends,
There are things written in this thread about my post above.
Let us look at the aspects of my post.
First, I request that those that are reading this thread to consider what I wrote in the post. The reason for my request for those who are reading this thread to {consider} what I write in the post is so that if they post, they will have that imfomation to take into consideration in their post here.
There are two considerations offerred by me. One is a request if you could do research in relation to the Nazi Holocaust in relation to the Nazis initiating the boycott of jewish businesses and if that fosterd to stigmatize jews and arrouse hatrd toward them.
There was a picture offered to show that this was indeed a historical event, not to be doubted. I often present this type of post to be included if anyone here promulgates what is called,{Holocaust Denial}.
It is not my intention to make any type of case that DR. Hsiung's statement in question is to be compared to the Nazis. On the contrary, for my post was intended to offer education as to the cause of the Nazi Holocaust so that we could have a civil discussion and perhaps use this administrative forum to discuss relevant issues an relation to the improvment of the community.
I feel that if we have a knowlege of the causes of the Nazi Holocaust, that that could be good for the community as a whole.
I am not trying to compare anything with this community, but to foster education that could have the potntial to be productive.
I am requesting that anyone that has made ststements that I am comparing in some way Nazis with anything here, to re read my post above.
Lou
Posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:10:17
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-didhe?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 19:20:21
As I recall Lou, you actually, rightfully criticized a comparison between what happens here and the holocaust. That was the post I'd mentioned before, where you and Noa helped me see things in a different way, when at first I thought you were over reacting.
I'll see if I can find a link to it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 20:18:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-didhe? » Lou Pilder, posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:10:17
gabbi,
Thank you for remembering that I have in the past written against comparing to the Nazis. You see, what you have done is open up the fact that I am only wanting to have others here have a knowlege of {the causes of the holocaut}, not to devalue the suffereings of those that were the outlet of the Nazi ideology. You know that I have in the past objected to any devaluing of peoples here.
Thank you for your effort here in my behalf.
Best wishes to you all,
Lou
Posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:30:40
In reply to Lou's thanks to gabbi-wldn » gabbii, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 20:18:35
> gabbi,
> Thank you for remembering that I have in the past written against comparing to the Nazis. You see, what you have done is open up the fact that I am only wanting to have others here have a knowlege of {the causes of the holocaut}, not to devalue the suffereings of those that were the outlet of the Nazi ideology. You know that I have in the past objected to any devaluing of peoples here.
> Thank you for your effort here in my behalf.Your welcome Lou.
Posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 20:38:08
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamar-stig? » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 16:47:47
Hi Lou,
> You wrote,[...concerned that you may feel stigmatized...].
> Here is Dr. Hsiung's statement in question
> [...sometimes it is more conducive to "civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply, or even not to read in the first place...].
> This was written to a poster that read my post.
> I feel that there is the potential for some others to think that there is the potential for the statement in question to mean that ;
> A. People here will be more civil if they,[...not read in the first place...]. Do you see any potential for any acssociation with "civic harmony and welfare" with ,perhaps, reading what I post?
> Now the Nazis stood in front of the stores owned by jews and said [...don't buy from them...]. I have nothing to sell so no one can say don't by from Lou Pilder here. But the only thing that I do have here is what I write here. [...not to read in the firat place...]? Do you think that there is not the potential for some oehters her to think that they could be be harmed by reading Lou's posts here after reading Dr. Hsiung's statement in question?I think the crucial difference is that the Nazis instigated a boycott of Jewish businesses BECAUSE they were Jewish. If someone suggested that your posts shouldn’t be read because of your religious or cultural identity then that would clearly be uncivil and in my view quite wrong.
But that’s not what’s happening here. In this case we’re talking about the possibility of not reading posts if reading might lead to an uncivil response. It’s not personal and has nothing to do with anyone’s religious or cultural identity.
The issue of civic harmony and welfare is relevant because an uncivil response to your posts can be distressing to others in the community at Babble as well as to you.
I don’t think people are likely to think anyone could be harmed by reading your posts, though they might think that there’s a possibility that some of your posts can elicit a strong emotional reaction in some people.
Thanks for clarifying that you were not intending to compare Babble to the Nazis. I’m still not precisely clear what aspect of the boycott of Jewish businesses you wanted to discuss with reference to administrative issues at Babble. Perhaps something about social exclusion? I don’t see quite how it fits in, but if you expand a little perhaps that will help.
Having said that, I won’t be able to participate in any ongoing discussion at the moment because I’m about to going on holiday for ten days. I wanted to mention that, because I won’t have computer access, and I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your posts! I’ll be interested to see what’s happened when I get back.
Best wishes,
Tamar
Posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:44:07
In reply to Re: Lou's thanks to gabbi-wldn » Lou Pilder, posted by gabbii on July 14, 2005, at 20:30:40
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/422001.html
Lou Pilder on November 29, 2004, at 15:08:36
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on November 29, 2004, at 10:18:02
Toph,
You wrote,[...he inexplicably blocked her...It seems so caprecious to me...In Auchwitz the guards used to execute people at random...to maintain...fear.Perhaps there's some of that going on here. Whenever things get ...unruly-exterminate someone-not because it is justified, but because you can...]. Then you wrote to me, [holocaust surviver who said...indifference...to the small ...injustices that led to the genocide...] and, [...this small injustice that he (Dr Hsiung) has...perpetrated on Susan...].
After reading both of your posts, I have some questions that if they are answered, could allow me to have a better understanding of your two posts . Could you examine the following and perhaps answer some of the questions that I have? If you could ,then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung acted in a caprecious manner, such as what you think concerning Susan here, and this could lead to another nazi holocaust?
B. Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung singled out Susan randomly to create an atmosphere of fear here?
C. Are you saying that The block of Susan is equivalant to the extermination of a person?
D. Are you saying that Dr. Hsiung can do unjustified things to posters here?
Lou
Toph-fer-extrm's reply to » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on November 29, 2004, at 15:33:51
I'd like to weigh in on this one. I didn't see the original post you wrote, but if it is accurately quoted in this thread ("...In Auchwitz the guards used to execute people at random...to maintain...fear.Perhaps there's some of that going on here. Whenever things get ...unruly-exterminate someone-not because it is justified, but because you can..."), I think there is an issue with it and I'd like to explain why I see it this way and why this mention of the Holocaust is not in the same category as the duty to remember that was conveyed by the Survivor you mentioned.
The reason I believe this is that when I read your post, the comparison to the horror of Auchwitz comes across to me as one that is way out of proportion to the question of whether Dr. Bob was fair in blocking someone from this board, and therefore comes across to me as not acknowledging the magnitude of the Holocaust. To me, the Holocaust (which hits home in a personal way for me, but I would say that other major tragedies-- including, all too unfortunately as we know, other genocides that have occured and are still occuring--would also fall into this category) is so serious that invoking it as an analogy need be reserved for rare and serious occasions, lest the analogy come across as trivializing it or dismissing the magnitude of the tragedy. Which is to say that I agree with the Survivor you mentioned who said we should never forget, but I also feel strongly that something like this needs to be treated with a great deal of respect.
I don't think it was your intent to trivialize what happened at Auchwitz or in other settings during the Holocaust, but I hope that I have explained well why the effect of the use of the analogy COULD come across that way.
I also want to say that I really do not believe Dr. Bob's decision on blocking deserves to be compared to the unimaginable terror perpetrated by guards at Auchwitz, or that his intentions deserve to be seen in such an evil light. You have a right to express your opinion about Dr. Bob's decision and even what you think his intentions might be (although when assuming intentions, we all get into very tricky territory, especially using this form of communication), but I think it would come across better to me (and others?) if you would express these without invoking such powerful and painful images.
This is all, of course, JMO, but I hope that I have adequately explained why I do think the reference to Auchwitz might be problematic in this instance.
Noa
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 20:48:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Tamar-stig? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 14, 2005, at 20:38:08
Tamar,
You wrote,[..I am not clear...].
Well, there is much more to this than what can be seen . But you do have a good idea about things beyond what is seen.
I do not think that in the 10 days that you are not able to read here that this could be brought out. Thank you for you participation in this discussion.
Have a nice holiday.
Best wishes,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 21:40:08
In reply to Dr Bob's Response - Lou, posted by Nickengland on July 14, 2005, at 16:49:20
Nick,
You wrote,[...promoting civility...].
Well, if suggesting to one that they are promoting civility by [..not to read in the first place...], could not there be the potential for some others here to also think that since it is the athority- host-moderator that is making the suggestion, that it could be for them also to [...not read in the first place..] also to be civil here? Could then that have the potential to have others not reply to my posts here?
You see, I think that there is a difference between if ,let's say, you suggest to another her to[...not read in the first place..] to be civil here and when Dr. Hsiung writes that. He is the authority and the weight is much greater to the recipiant of the suggestion than if a poster made the suggestion.
I had this happen to me in real life, so I am extreamly sensitive to this. That is why I am requesting that others here responding to this thread aquaint themselves with the causes of the Nazi Holocaust.
[...not to read in the first place...]? How does that promote civility? Could not the poster change his/her way of responding to my posts instead of being suggested to not read in the first place? If the poster does not read my posts, could that be something that could have the potential to promote something else?
Lou
Posted by Nickengland on July 15, 2005, at 5:24:41
In reply to Lou's reply to Nickengland-promo? » Nickengland, posted by Lou Pilder on July 14, 2005, at 21:40:08
Lou,
You asked how does what Dr Bob promote civility?
Like I said in my previous post to you, many people who have engaged in discussion with you, past and present have received PBC's, blocks and some have actually left here from what I have seen. (If you read my previous post, in the last paragraphs I have explained this)
So when Dr Bob said what he did, he was preventing people recieving further PBC's or possbile blocks - As this has happened in the past and till this present day....he was promoting civility by saying what he did, to hopefully prevent people getting PBC's and any bad feeling that could be caused in the future.
Now an example of this is even in your current thread. So far 2 people have already recieved PBC's and also bad feeling has arose from your posts. When Dr Bob said what he did I think he was trying to prevent this very thing..
This is ironic as when you felt that perhaps people would not read your posts because what Dr Bob has said.....it just goes to show that people still continue to read your posts regardless, so in essence you have nothing to worry about Lou...
In the case of what you said,
"If the poster does not read my posts, could that be something that could have the potential to promote something else?"
Lou if people did not read your posts regarding this thread then no bad feeling would have been caused and no one would have received PBC's...that something else would have been promoted. But even this case where it was suggested by Dr Bob that no one read your posts...they still did.
I would request, that perhaps you think about how you might be able to promote civility through the posting style of your threads, as to prevent bad feeling that commonly arises from such discussions - in this way you will be in control of promoting your own civility.
Its about give and take Lou...you can try and give all the advice and suggestions in the world to other people, but sometimes you have to take the advice and suggestion that people give to you too. You might find you don't have to say sorry so much then.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 23:40:24
In reply to Do you like me? (got long) » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 14, 2005, at 1:08:58
> it's hard for me to believe that you are interested in getting along with people here. I've seen a lot of other people ask you questions, but I haven't seen you answer any of those questions... I've never once seen you write anything that leads me to believe that you care, or feel any regret for having HURT SOMEONE ELSE'S FEELINGS.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2005, at 0:16:47
In reply to Lou's summery of the issues-sumry » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
> could there be the potential for some others to think that the risk be different if they are replying to my posts, verses all the rest of the posts?
I think the risk may be different if the posts are different. People may react differently, for example, to requests for clarification vs. offers of support. I don't think requests for clarification are inherently unsupportive, but I do think they're a type of post that people may not expect or appreciate.
Bob
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.