![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 6:07:59
In reply to Re: Lou's suggestion, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:17:34
I had an idea whilst reading through this discussion, it may or may not be helpful, or something that can be used, but I thought i'd share the idea with you in case its something that might help.
When writing 3 posts in a row, instead using something like microsoft word or notepad, you could write the post on the word processor, like a draft copy, then when you have gathered your thoughts on the subject, post the entire topic and body of the post that would usually take up 3 or more posts, into one.
Heres an example using 7 of your recent posts, condensed into one:
Friends,
Please note that in my requests for a determination, I do not consider that a request is an {objection}, although Dr. Hsiung may, to what is requested to be determined as to the accepatbility or not in relation the guidlines of the forum. My requests, to me, are for me to have more definition and clarification about the rules so that more definition could be given to support, for I can not read the mind of the rule-maker,and IMO requesting definition as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not does not mean that it is a complaint, for the request is to see what the maker of the rule considers to be acceptable or not {in relation to his guidlines of his rules for the forum}. I can not know his or anyone else's mind without asking.
As to what he says is or is not acceptable, is what I am asking for, and it is my deep conviction that one should not be sanctioned for {not knowing} if the rule maker considers something acceptable or not about his rules.
Now the new rule ,as I see it, has not been put into the FAQ yet? If it becomes a rule, or has already been put in the FAQ, then it is concievable that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or be defaming to me, could be left on the board indefiniatly without my request for Dr. Hsiung to determine if the statement is acceptable or not, ever being seen on the forum to the members, am I right? This is because I can not, according to the new rule, email my concern as a request to him to see if the statement in question, in his thinking, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if the poster is one that I have made 3 requests to Dr. Hsiung in the past.
So concievably, {those posters} could post what could be seen to have the potential to accuse Jews and defame Jews without me being able to email Dr. Hsiung about it, because I have already used up my 3 requests according to the new rule. And looking at the new rule, is there anything given to continue to receive an answer to your request after the last opportunity which is to post a request to look at his email afte ,I guess, 5 days or so have already run and the statement has stood for that long without a reply?
I do not feel confortable with that kind of rule, for I do not think that it is supportive or civil to let stand for one minuet, yet 5 days or more any statements that could foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum.
Lou PilderFriends,
I am requesting your consideration as to if you think that what I will propose here is or is not a better way to handle the situation that caused the {3} rule to arrise.
I think that it is supportive to have clarification of rules in any community and that the administrative forum is for that purpose. So Thay could mean that the administartive forum is not for support, but it could be.
SO I suggeat that my views be considerd as in the following.
If I was the rule-maker, I would not want to restrict inquieries for any reason, although others may think that restraning inquieries is supportive. But be it as it may be, and taking into account that some others may think that it is uncivil to request determination over 3 to one member, I propose a solution for a new rule.
My new rule would take into acct that the restricting of the number of requests to some people could be uin some way a time issue with them. I can understand that, but at the same time, I would not want to keep anyone's request from being heard. So If there are to be restrictions as to the number of requests, the the criteria that I suggeat for the request to {not count as being in the 3} to have the following critria.
A.That the request has a proper foundation only.
This means that if a request can show that there is more than one interpretation, that the request is to be honored. This can be done by posting a previous post to bring that out.
B. That if there is in the past practice a post that has been sanctioned, that that is a proper foundation to be honored.
C. If the post has {in the opinion of the poster}the potential to arrouse ill-will toward anyone or a group, that that could be a proper foundation to be honored.
now I agree that if a request id frivolous, that that is another thing. But at the same time, I do not consider any request to find out what the rule-maker thinking is, to be frivilous for the requester can not know what the thinking is of the rule maker without asking.
Now if someone had absolutly no foundation for the request, then I tend to lean that that request is also valid, and I know that others may disagree here with me, but the lacking of a foundation could show something that time and space do not allow me to go into here at the moment that could foster support.
LouFriends,
Here is an example of my proposal.
Poster A posts
Hey evrybody, how about if we have a sky-diving club here of babblers?
Poster B writes,
Skydiving is bullcr*p.(the poster does not use the star)
Poster C posts a request for a determination on what poster B posted as to if it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum
Dr. Hsiung writes back and asks the poster, C, what the foundation is to allow the request.
Poster C cites the clause about not posting language that could offend others.
Now here I would tend to think that a discussion about this has a proper foundation , for a resonable person could think that the word is in the catagory of {language that could offend others}.
Then Dr. Hsiung writes back,
I see that it could invoke your inquierey, but my thinking is that that word does not fall into the catagory {here} of language that could offend others.
Or Dr. Hsiung could agree with the poster.
Either way, the poster could have thought that he needed to know Dr. Hsiung's thinking and had a foundation to ask.
LouRacer,
You wrote,[...to now be emailed...]
First, is this new rule in the FAQ or still under discussion?
LouRacer,
You wrote,[...to now be emailed...]
First, is this new rule in the FAQ or still under discussion?
LouFriends,
Let us remember back when this came up. There was something about 100 posts.
What that referred to is that there was a topic that was so comprehensive, that I wrote thsat I would need 100 posts to cover it. I did not mean that I was telling others that they could not post, for that would not be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum, ie to tell other that they can not post.
So all that meant was that it could be a long topic, like the Effexor thread.
Then there is the issue of that people do not have to enter a thread, nor do they have to read what is in it.
So the proposal is...(next post)
Lou
Friends,The limitation to only 3 consecutive posts can now be seen in the thread above this one.
Notice that I am posting my reply to Racer and that 3 consecutive posts have happened. But I would like to reply to more about her post to me and can't untill someone else enters the thread. Thearfore I am stopped from saying what I could say which could have the potential to foster support and education. Why limit support and education here? This is one of the reasons that I am ofering way to satisfy those that want me to stop posting after 3 posts, which will follow if someone posts here, since as I am typing, I have 3 consecutive posts..
Lou
Good luck on your quest.~
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 6:31:33
In reply to Re: Sobriquet's suggestion, posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 6:07:59
Sobriquet,
Thank you for your suggestion. But then, could I not just write a book?
You see, by me posting one thought at a time, I am giving the other members of the forum an opportunity to enter the discussion at its lowest point for them, which IMO is a sound educational concept. I base this on 27 years of teaching math to grades 7-12. I found that breaking things down to the smallest and then building on each concept allowed the whole to be seen when it was finished. This is my style and is ingrained into my writing and I do not want to change it, nor can I change it.
One here posted that he saw in my posting something like, incredible logic. Well. I do not think that I deserve to be in a catagory of being something like incredible, but it was a nice statement. What I do is to break things down so that they can be handled easier than if the entire matter was posted in one lump. Is that something that you think is something that could be labeled as uncivil?
Lou
Posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 6:45:34
In reply to Lou's reply to Sobriquet's suggestion » Sobriquet Style, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 6:31:33
>What I do is to break things down so that they can be handled easier than if the entire matter was posted in one lump.
I've heard that bitesize learning is one of the best ways to be taught.
>Is that something that you think is something that could be labeled as uncivil?
Bitesize learning, in general? Not at all.
~
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 6:58:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sobriquet's suggestion, posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 6:45:34
Sobriquet,
You wrote,[...not at all...]
Thank you for saying that. So are you saying that the 3 -consecutive- post rule here could have the potential to thwart learning? If so, is that civil in your opinion?
Lou
Posted by crazy teresa on August 14, 2006, at 8:54:42
In reply to Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 5:59:29
The thing is, I don't see anyone asking you to wear a badge. Can we forgive past indiscretions, move forward and all be friends?
You know how the bobster can be. There are a lot of posts he hasn't responded to, even when asked to clarify the rules. Sometimes it's up to us to figure things out by osmosis. I'm not saying I agree, just that that's the way it is.
What does that leave us to do but either deal with the currently flawed system or go elsewhere, knowing nowhere we go will be perfect?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:04:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 14, 2006, at 8:54:42
ct,
You wrote,[...I do not see anyone asking you to wear a badge of shame...]
I am not allowed now by the new rule to post URL's, so you could email me if you want and I will give you those posts.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:14:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 14, 2006, at 8:54:42
ct,
You wrote,[...can we forgive...?]
Is not the administration going to expell me for a year if I ask for a determination to made as to if a statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if the poster of such is one that I have in the past asked about a determination to be made in three of the posts and Dr. Hsiung said that his thinking is that those posts were acceptable? And is not the administartion also going to sanction me if I was to post 4 posts that another was not between? And could not the administration sanction those posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that are left unsanctioned? Could you give me your opinion as to why they will not do that?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:21:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 14, 2006, at 8:54:42
ct,
You wrote,[...figure things out by osmosis...currently flawed system...]
Do you think that it is conducive to civc harmony and welfare to have to figure things out by osmosis? And are you saying that you think that asking to clarify rules is uncivil because one is to keep the system flawed and asking for clarification could have the potential to unflaw the system?
Lou
Posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 11:05:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Sobriquet » Sobriquet Style, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 6:58:08
>So are you saying that the 3 -consecutive- post rule here could have the potential to thwart learning?
Anything is possible these days.
>If so, is that civil in your opinion?
As this site is educational, it would be civilized that people learning and people teaching, should be able to do so in a logical and commonsensical format.
~
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 11:17:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sobriquet, posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 11:05:48
Sobriquet,
You wrote,[...a logical commonsensical format...]
I think that my method is logical, and does not defy common sense. Are you concurring with what I think ?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 14:43:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 14, 2006, at 8:54:42
ct,
You wrote,[...go elsewhere...]
Throughout history, the Jews have been told to leave, or had to leave their country. Even Sigmund Freud had to leave the Nazi Austria-Hungarian area because he had a Jewish relative and he would be murdered if he stayed in his country. He fled to England as the Nazis started their persecution of the Jews when it was a crime to be a Jew. The fact that he was a professsor and could have contributed to his country was not any priority for the Nazis. What would Germany be like today if they did not expell the Jews. In 1742, Empress Elisebeth of Russia expelled all Jews from Russia.What would that country be like today if they did not expell the Jews.
In 1492, Queen Isabella of Spain issued a decree to expell all Jews from all Spainish lands. The fact that many Jews could have contributed to the country was not an issue. What would Spain be like today if they did not expell the Jews?
[...go elsewhere...]? Really?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 14, 2006, at 20:12:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 14:43:54
I believe that was meant as to another forum. Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:21:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 14, 2006, at 20:12:31
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...{...go elsewhere...}...],that you think means to [...go to another forum...]
Well, could it also not mean,[...leave this forum...]? And then there is as to why one would suggest that I leave this forum.
Do you have an opinion, as to what that poster meant, that is a reson that I should leave this forum?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 14, 2006, at 20:26:38
In reply to Lou's reply yo Phillipa--duyu? » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:21:53
Lou no one's asking you to leave. Just that if you don't like the rules here. Just like the schools you taught in had rules then why not see if there is another forum you might feel you fit in better at. Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:36:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Phillipa--duyu? » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 14, 2006, at 20:26:38
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...no one is asking you to leave.Just that if you don't like the rule here....].
Would you say that Dr. Martin Luther King jr. was wrong to challenge the rules that denied civil rights to his race and that since he didn't like the rules he should have left the country and went to a country that had civil rights laws to protect his race? If not, could you say why he was not wrong to stay?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 14, 2006, at 20:39:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Phillipa-- » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:36:56
Nope!!!!!!Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:45:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Phillipa-- » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:36:56
Phillipa,
Hear is a link that in a short space describes the life of Martin Luther King jr.
And he took a bullet for...?
www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/bio.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:49:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa--freatls » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 20:45:45
Posted by Jost on August 14, 2006, at 22:14:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:21:24
> ct,
> You wrote,[...figure things out by osmosis...currently flawed system...]
> Do you think that it is conducive to civc harmony and welfare to have to figure things out by osmosis? And are you saying that you think that asking to clarify rules is uncivil because one is to keep the system flawed and asking for clarification could have the potential to unflaw the system?
> LouI had one other question, Lou, after reading some of what you've written in the past two days.
The question is as follows:
Do you think it's possible to arrive at a general understanding of what a rule is--ie how it will be applied-- after reading the rule and encountering a few instances of its application?
If you feel it isn't possible to arrive at a general understanding, do you know why it's so hard for you to do that?
thanks, Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 22:45:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » Lou Pilder, posted by Jost on August 14, 2006, at 22:14:24
Hi Jost,
You have some very good questions for me, and I appreciate that.
Let us look at;
[...do you think that it's possible to
A.Have an ubderstanding of a rule
B.how it will be applied
C seing its application...]
Yes
Lou
Posted by crazy teresa on August 15, 2006, at 6:22:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:21:24
I'm not saying anything other than that's the just the way things are.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 15, 2006, at 6:23:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to crazy teresa- » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 9:14:53
I could, but my opinion doesn't matter.
Posted by crazy teresa on August 15, 2006, at 6:42:56
In reply to Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2006, at 5:59:29
The oppression of a group of people does not compare to following the rules on Babble.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:18:24
In reply to You're not comparing apples to apples. » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 15, 2006, at 6:42:56
ct,
You wrote,[...the oppression to a group of people does not compare to following the rules on Babble...]
The oppression of a group of people can start with the oppression of just one of those people in that group.
What I am wanting dialog about here is as to the rules being
A. well-defined
B. applied equally.
The rules here stress that one is not to post what could lead another to feel accused or put down or to post what could be insensitive to another, or to put down those of other faiths. If there are statements that lead me as a Jew here to feel accused or put down, and those statements are not sanctioned as other statements are in the same fashion, then I feel put down by the nature that the administration is unwilling to apply equally their own rules
In the case at hand, are there not statements that accuse the Jews of killing Christ and are not sanctioned as other statements that accuse someone here? Can I not exercise due diligence to stop this from being fostered on this forum by the nature that since those type of statements are not sanctioned as others are that accuse, that others could be led to think that those statements are civil?
Lou
Posted by crazy teresa on August 16, 2006, at 12:39:12
In reply to Lou's reply to Crazy Teresa » crazy teresa, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:18:24
Dr. Bob is not a governmental body, so comparing him to one is not a valid comparison.
You might also consider the fact that your comparisons could serve to inflate his ego, in turn, feeding his god complex, so please cease and desist! ;~}
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.