![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:12:17
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-ruloutLu?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 8:52:18
Yes there have been three requests. Two were deemed acceptable on admin and the third wasn't pbc'd or please rephrased.
Dr. Bob says you've hit your three. Here's your link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410814.html
To quote from the above:
"Lou, it's now up to you to deal in some other way with posts by her, for example, by not even reading them.
Bob "
As for your first request on defamation? Nikki never said it was you, but your interest in it got my curiousity up. I never found a threat to sue, but I did find an accusation:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/252564.html
and to quote from that:
"You have mad eother defaming statement about me and they are in the archives. As far as others defaming me, that is another story."
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:17:21
In reply to Re: to Nikki, posted by coral on August 4, 2005, at 9:48:19
Nikki - I know this is a rough day for you. Deep breaths.
I'm having a rough day, too. If I email you a hosp. name will you call and check on my friend?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:25:39
In reply to Re: Lou wants a link? » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:12:17
Friends,
It is written here that there are three posts in question.
One of them has Dr. Hsiung writing,{...Pleease be civil...]. It is my understanding that those type of posts that are determined to be worthy of Dr. Hsiung requesting to the poster that wrote the post to [...Please be civil...] do not count toward the "3".
OTOH, I do not believe that I have requested for Dr. Hsiung to write a 4th determination on the board after those. And is not there only 2 if the one with the [...Please be civil...] is not counted?
Lou
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 11:50:37
In reply to Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:25:39
Quite off subject I know, and I appologise for any confusion in advance...
Lou, i was just wondering are you female or male?
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:51:36
In reply to Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:25:39
The PBS was about something she wrote about your request, not on the original request.
So - it doesn't count.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:56:20
In reply to Re: Lou wants a link? » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:12:17
Friends,
It is written here,[...two were deemed acceptable...the third wasn't pbc'd or asked to be rephrased...].
Looking at the links offered by the poster for this, I am finding that Dr. Hsiung did request the poster to be civil. But looking at it, I can not determine which posts are in consideration.
OTOH, if a post was left without Dr. Hsiung writing that it was either acceptable or not, then It is my understanding that it has not been deemed to be acceptable because there are other posts here that have not been addressed by Dr. Hsiung that I have requested for him to write a determination as to if it is acceptable or not and I remember him reply to my question to him as to how one could know if the statement in question was acceptable or not if he did not address it one way or the other and I remember him writing something like,[...you can't...].
With his reply to me in that respect, it is my understanding that those type of posts are not counted in the "3". And anyway, I do not believe that I have requested a 4th in relation to anyone here.
Dr. Hsiung did write that I could deal with posts that IMO are defaming to me and such that are posted by those with "3" by seeking alternatives. I have emsiled Dr. Hsiung for months about popsts that I request a detremination from him. I have not seen an email reply from him to me about those.
I can not post requests for determinations from posts that are from those posters of "3", nor have I been successfull in emailing Dr. Hsiung for him to reply to me with a determination.
I am requesting for anyone here to advise me of a way that they think could be used under these circumstatnces.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 12:41:32
In reply to Lou's response to AM's post-B, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:56:20
Well, that is beyond my scope.
I just remembered that Dr. Bob said that, in regards to Nikki, that you would now have to find another way. You wanted a link and I gave it to you.
It is up to Dr. Bob to decide if this (these) fall into the same catagory of requests.
As for other ways? Sorry - I wish I could help.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 12:45:38
In reply to Re: No - the pbc does not count » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 11:51:36
Friends,
It is written here that Dr. Hsiung has offered me the alternative to requesting a determination from those that I have "3" to ignore the posts. But if I do ignore them , and Dr. Hsiung does not reply to my emails concerning those type of posts to him;
I ask:
A.If I was to ignore a post that IMO ,let's say, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, could there not be the potential for others to post like posts and escalate matters if there is no moderator interceding?
B. If I was to ignore those type of posts, could one have the potential to think that there is the potential to think that I also endorse what is posted?
C. Is it supportive for the moderaor to make a rule that restrains a member of a mental health community from requesting from the moderator to write a determination as to what a poster has posted is acceptable to write here or not?
D. Could it be , in your opinion, reasonable to allow one to request after "3" if the moderator is not active on the board, lets say, for 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 12:57:38
In reply to Re: It's up to Dr. Bob to decide » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 12:41:32
Friends,
It is written her,[...I remembered that Dr. Bob said that...you would now have to find another way...].
But OTOH, there were there {not} "3" posts deemed acceptable, but only 2, in the post citing the posts in question? If so, then could there be an error that could allow me to post one more request on the board for that poster in question?
And on another note, if one of those deemed acceptable has something in it that later was deemed unacceptable,then in your opinion, could that post not count?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
In reply to Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 11:25:39
> Friends,
> It is written here that there are three posts in question.
> One of them has Dr. Hsiung writing,{...Pleease be civil...]. It is my understanding that those type of posts that are determined to be worthy of Dr. Hsiung requesting to the poster that wrote the post to [...Please be civil...] do not count toward the "3".Maybe I'm reading it wrong or looking at the wrong link, but the "please be civil" I see was directed at noa and SLS...not Nikki. And thus, he let stand the post she made that you requested a determination on. I counted three requests with no action taken towards Nikki. It's my understanding you could make a fourth request, but if it also holds up and no action is taken, then your request (the fourth)would be deemed uncivil. It's up to you whether you want to risk that or not or come up with another way to cope with your reactions to posts from nikki.
And just to add to the conversation, it's up to each individual poster to cope with their own unique reactions to posts. I understand that you are worried about someone experiencing anti-semitic feelings in regards to reading something, but other people's feelings are not really within your locus of control. We all are responsible for our own feelings and reactions.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:19:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
That the last post about anti-semetic feelings was only an example cause there *darn* sure wasn't anything like that in Nikki's talk with crushed about the constitution.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:22:25
In reply to Re: I'm sure hoping » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:19:53
But thanks for worrying.
I thought I was validating Lou's general concerns about posts here on Babble. I was not referring to any specific post. I probably should have made that more clear since I was responding on a thread that did begin about a specific post.
Thanks for asking.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 13:30:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...you are worried about someone experiancing antisemitic feelings...].
The aspect of those type of posts is that it is my concern that {there could be the potential, IMO, for the post to arrouse antisemitic feelings.}
There are many examples here that I have requested for the administration to address.
OTOH, if I am not allowed to request on the board if a post in the future is from a "3", and let's say Dr. Hsiung does not reply to me in an email request to him, then what can I do then, in your opinion?
And could you write your opinion of if the rule made by Dr. Hsiung about the "3" is supportive?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
In reply to It was a generalization » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:22:25
I know yours was a generalization. I was talking about the post you were answering.
But - if a person were really making those type remarks it is highly unlikely that Dr. Bob would consider them civil in the first place so it's a non-issue as far as I can see.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:02:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
>
> And just to add to the conversation, it's up to each individual poster to cope with their own unique reactions to posts.I don't think that applies to this board at all. If it were up to each poster to cope with their own response we wouldn't have such strict 'civility rules.' Or did I miss something?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Friends,
It is written here with many offered links that there are 3 requests by me that have been allowed to be acceptable here.
I am having trouble navigating all the offered links to determine what the original posts that make up the 3 are.
I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:11:09
In reply to Lou's response gg's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
> Friends,
> It is written here with many offered links that there are 3 requests by me that have been allowed to be acceptable here.
> I am having trouble navigating all the offered links to determine what the original posts that make up the 3 are.
> I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
> LouFriends,
when you click on the second offere link , a post by Nikki comes up. Could anyone clarify how is that a part of the "3" ?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:33:37
In reply to Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
> I know yours was a generalization. I was talking about the post you were answering.
>
> But - if a person were really making those type remarks it is highly unlikely that Dr. Bob would consider them civil in the first place so it's a non-issue as far as I can see.Friends,
It is written above about [...those type of remarks...highly unlikely that Dr.Bob...it's a non issue...].
I am requesting that if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread that you ask yourself the following:
A. What could be in a statement that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
B. Could a statement that writes that [...the only way to the Father is through Jesus...]have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings? If not, could you clarify why it could not?
C. Could a statement that wrote epithets about jews have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
D. Could a statement that spoke to jewish ancestry, in a manner of concern to jews, have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
E. Could a statement that depicted the religious leaders of ancient Israel as hypocrites have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
F. Could a statement that depicted the God of the Jews as cantankerous and vengfull arrouse antisemitic feelings?
G. Could a statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings be allowed to be posted here because it is part of the official verses of a poster's church here? If so, could a supremist group post their doctrins here, such as the Aryan Nation or could someone post a link to the web site of Randy Crow?
H. Can a statement be posted here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitc feelings because it is in the Bible? If so, then could you clarify how this could be if there is a rule here that writes that even if one quotes another , that does not protect an uncivil statement?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:06:41
In reply to Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32
Ahhh, I re-read your message more carefully and I get it. And I agree.
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthefrst, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:33:37
Lou,
How on earth has anti-semetism come into the conversation?
Has *anything* I have said been anti-semetic? In any way?
Do you know it is quite distressing to have it bought into a conversation about my posts?
Can I ask you, please, to refrain from this whole discussion into my posts please? Just wait till Dr Bob cmes and see what he has to say. In the mean time, please, I ask, stop posting about my two posts.
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:18:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » gardenergirl, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 14:02:27
>
> >
> > And just to add to the conversation, it's up to each individual poster to cope with their own unique reactions to posts.
>
> I don't think that applies to this board at all. If it were up to each poster to cope with their own response we wouldn't have such strict 'civility rules.' Or did I miss something?I think it's an individual's responsibility to cope with their own feelings. No one can "cope" for you. But that doesn't preclude Dr. Bob from placing limits on the content of material which others might have stronger reactions to based on general and common experience, conventional wisdom, and/or any other basis for this he decides to use.
I suppose I said what I did as a reaction to the suggestion that certain types of posts might arouse certain feelings. It's my belief that those feelings cannot be aroused if they don't exist in the person to begin with. And if they do exist, they do. So while I agree that rules to limit offensive or hurtful content are useful for keeping this a generally safe place, I also think that we can't be protected from any potential threat, because our reactions are uniquely our own. The only way I can see to eliminate any and all potential threat to aroused feelings of any kind would be to not allow any posting. Heck, even the tele-tubbies aroused something in Pat Buchanan, wasn't it? Or that other guy...I can see his face.....ah, whatever.
There must be a good balance to personal responsiblity for feelings and protecting feelings somehow. Right now it appears the balance is too far into the protective side for many folks' tastes and not enough for others. Probably can't get it "just right" for everyone, darn those bears.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:21:51
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthe » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
I think I may have brought it into the thread as a hypothetical in making a point. I wasn't thinking, and I am in no way saying that you or your posts are anti-semitic.
(slaps head with a big d'oh!)
Sorry for my lousy timing and insensitivity.
(((Nikki)))
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 15:24:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthe » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 4, 2005, at 15:10:42
Friends,
It is asked here how antisemitism came into this thread in discussion.
Well, could this be the post?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537460.html
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:32:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 13:12:43
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 15:33:39
In reply to Lou's response gg's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:03:28
> I am requesting for anyone to list the 3 URLs of the posts in question.
> LouTaken from Mark H’s original post, which Dr. Bob quoted in reply and Auntie Mel quoted in this thread.
>Here are some of Lou's requests for determination of Nikki's posts in the last couple of months:
>Request number 1
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407481.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
and Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407797.htmlRequest number 2
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408677.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408674.html
and Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/409053.htmlRequest number 3
Lou’s post
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403854.html
Which asked about this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
And Dr. Bob’s response
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/404343.html
There are no PBC’s to Nikki in the thread on 2000, which means that Dr. bob found the post in question as linked above acceptable.
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.