![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 10:37:39
Dr. Hsiung,
The concept of {precept upon precept}in relation to teaching has a logical understanding as well as a generally accepted mode of teaching.
Let us reason together. In (pp) one understanding of a precept can open up the door to seek another understanding, could it not?
Let us look at the reasoning of the {one long post} alternative.
The (olp) could have many precepts intertwined and be difficult to see the individual strands, could it not? If you agree, then what could be your rational for writing that it {may be easier} for them (the less confident)to join in? Could it not be {easier for one to join in if there is a {breaking down} of individual concepts to small portions?
Lou Pilder
Posted by gardenergirl on October 5, 2006, at 11:07:18
In reply to Lou's request t Dr.Hsiung-precept upon precept(pp), posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 10:37:39
The subject and content of this post could suggest that it is a continuation of the thoughts expressed in a thread above. Specifically, it seems to relate directly to this post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692055.html
Typically, I would move the post to the relevant thread. If I were to do so, however, that would create four posts in a row by the author. This is an interesting dilemma.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:09:43
In reply to Lou's request t Dr.Hsiung-precept upon precept(pp), posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 10:37:39
Dr. Hsiung,
In the olp vs pp, let us look at what you wrote:
First, I agree that posting by breaking down into individual precepts could mean that more than 3 consecutive posts could be seen. But this is because of the nature of the breaking down that does not lend itself to have what is being taught to be seen untill the individual parts that have been broken down can be assembled. This does account for the possibility of even 10 consecutive posts to be made before what is veiled can be uncovered by breaking down into single precepts to be seen.
I ask;
A. Is it supportive for you to have your rule if it prevents me from giving support to those that could benifit from seeing statemnts that have the potential IMO to be accusative or put down Jews or other's faiths, that are veiled, to be uncovered by me posting 7 consecutive posts?
B. Is it civil of you to have your rule that could have the potential to allow uncivil statements including, but not limited to, statements that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if your rule prevents me from exposing those statemnts by me posting 7 consecutive posts, as to be uncivil according to your rules here?
C. Do you give a higher priority to you and/or those wanting me to not be allowed to post pp [and advocate olp], that could result in 7 consecutive posts because it will {give more of a chance },>even if I am not requesting their help to join in<, as you write in your FAQ?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:25:06
In reply to New thread?, posted by gardenergirl on October 5, 2006, at 11:07:18
Friends,
It is written here that something like that a post can be taken out and put into another thread.
I do not think so. Let us look at the rule here in question.
[...Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board...]
In the case brought up here in this thread, I did not start more than 3 consecutive threads. If the administration is allowed to minipulate the posts by taking one post out and putting it into another thread, then I would like if you could to email me about your thoughts about that if you like. lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:41:07
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:25:06
Friends
In what is written here something about transporting a post to another thread, let us look at the rule.
[...or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread...that may discourage less confident posters from joining in...]
The rule here, according to DR. Hsiung, that it is the seeing of 4 posts by a same name, not with another name in between, to cause {..the less confident poster to be discouraged..to join in...}.
I did not post more than 3 posts with not another name in between my name and so the less confident poster could not be discouraged by my posting not more than 3 consecutive posts to join in.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on October 5, 2006, at 12:40:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:41:07
One could make inferences from context about why a new thread was started when there is a current prior thread about the same topic.
Possible inferences about this include:
- The author didn't realize the posting window would create a new thread.
- The author believed the content of the new thread was different enough from any other thread, and this necessitated starting a new one.
- The author wished to continue posting on this subject but could not do so without posting four consecutive posts in a prior thread.These are, of course, possible inferences based on appearances and context and may not reflect actual intent.
gg
Posted by Jost on October 5, 2006, at 13:10:52
In reply to Re: New thread?, posted by gardenergirl on October 5, 2006, at 12:40:32
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 15:49:38
In reply to Lou's request t Dr.Hsiung-one long post-(olp), posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:09:43
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote in your FAQ about your rule that writes that if one sees a poster's name 4 times in a thread without another poster's name in between, are you saying that {posters that are less confident} could {feel good} to post if they only saw the name 3 times without another poster's name in between.
Does that mean to you;
A. that posters that are {less confident} will feel bad if they post when they see another member's name 4 times in a thread without another member's name in between? If so, could you explaine your rational for that?
B. That those that {do not wait} to post a 4th consecutive post in a thread are causing {less confident} posters to not feel good? If so, why do you think that?
C. Are you giving a higher priority to what you write as to the {less confident} poster by making it not OK to post 4 posts without another member's name in between, than to allow posters to offer support and/or education by breaking down topics into their individual componants that could requier maybe 7 consecutive posts before one could put the individual componants together to respond, to the rest of the group? If so, could you explain how does that go along with your statement in your FAQ that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole? Are you saying that only the olp mode of teaching can be used here? If so, could you explain what harm, if any, could occur to anyone if the discovery mode of teaching by breaking topics down into their small componants so that maybe 7 posts would be needed for discovery to take place was used?
If anyone would like to see the posts that I would like to respond to and why I think that the discovery mode could be supportive to the community here to reply to statments that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, you could if you like email me at lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 16:27:02
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:41:07
Friends,
I have innitiated this thread and others here on the administrative board to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung concerning his rules here. The administrative board is for that purpose as the other boards could be more for support.
I do feel that I am supporting those, however, here that could be interested in more definition and clarification being given to the policy and rules here about the site.
I ask;
A. If you would like to contribute to these threads of mine here, could you post concerning the rules in question that I am wanting to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung about, and if there is something that is outside of that that you want to bring up, to make a new thread about it?
I feel sensitive to anything that could have the potential to be considered to be accusative to me here, for it is my intention to have dialog with Dr.Hsiung so that I can find a way to post a response to posts that IMO have the potential to be accusative to Jews and have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, so that I can stay within his rules for the posting policy here.
B. If you would like to take the position that the rules in question here are for the good of the community as a whole, could you post why you think that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
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.