![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 553 to 577 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 3:59:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2014, at 8:18:06
> In the following, the poster uses the derogatory and slanderous portrayal of me as being a {disturbed person}.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.htmlI agree, that was uncivil. And I posted later in that thread that on a sh*t-slinging board, I wanted posters not to sling it back.
Did you consider the possibility that she might have felt jealous of you? Since she saw me as giving you protection I wasn't giving others? (Granted, you may not see the situation the same way.)
Bob
Posted by SLS on June 17, 2014, at 8:08:12
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 3:59:42
> > In the following, the poster uses the derogatory and slanderous portrayal of me as being a {disturbed person}.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> I agree, that was uncivil. And I posted later in that thread that on a sh*t-slinging board, I wanted posters not to sling it back.
>
> Did you consider the possibility that she might have felt jealous of you? Since she saw me as giving you protection I wasn't giving others? (Granted, you may not see the situation the same way.)She might not be jealous at all. Perhaps she felt indignant at the inequity of your selective protection and support bias. Without further clarification, we can't know this for sure.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 23:30:09
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by SLS on June 17, 2014, at 8:08:12
> > Did you consider the possibility that she might have felt jealous of you? Since she saw me as giving you protection I wasn't giving others?
>
> She might not be jealous at all. Perhaps she felt indignant at the inequity of your selective protection and support bias. Without further clarification, we can't know this for sure.I agree, we can't know for sure.
I also want to make clear that I don't see feeling jealous, or indignant, as justifying incivility.
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2014, at 0:01:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 23:30:09
But your pronouncement of alleged "anxiety" in a poster justifies boatloads of it.
>> Dr. Bob, protecting XXX with selective bias since 20??.
Posted by SLS on June 18, 2014, at 11:22:28
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 23:30:09
> > > Did you consider the possibility that she might have felt jealous of you? Since she saw me as giving you protection I wasn't giving others?
> >
> > She might not be jealous at all. Perhaps she felt indignant at the inequity of your selective protection and support bias. Without further clarification, we can't know this for sure.
>
> I agree, we can't know for sure.
>
> I also want to make clear that I don't see feeling jealous, or indignant, as justifying incivility.Agreed.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2014, at 5:46:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2014, at 3:59:42
> > In the following, the poster uses the derogatory and slanderous portrayal of me as being a {disturbed person}.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> I agree, that was uncivil. And I posted later in that thread that on a sh*t-slinging board, I wanted posters not to sling it back.
>
> Did you consider the possibility that she might have felt jealous of you? Since she saw me as giving you protection I wasn't giving others? (Granted, you may not see the situation the same way.)
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...you may not see the situation the same way...].
No, Mr. Hsiung. I do not see the situation the same way. I see what is plainly visible.
I see your former deputy writing about my character as can be seen. And it can be seen that there is not a post by you to the post by her to say that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and that what she wrote about me is not in accordance with a rule here. And because of that, a subset of readers could think that it is not against your rules to post such that could decrease the respect and regard that I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me. There is a rational basis for those to think that because those readers could think that you are validating what she wrote about my character because your rule to post a warning to the poster of such to the statement in question first, and then block the person the next time. Your listing of options could not be seen as a sanction at all by those in that subset because the list is not directed to her in particular for what she wrote about me. A subset of readers now could think that readers need to be mind-readers to jump to such a conclusion that what you posted in the list of options is a sanction to the slander of my character and could think even now, after you posted this here that you are validating the hatred posted by her toward me which could arouse anti-Semitic feelings toward me because I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from leaving anti-Semitic statement to stand here.
I have the following concerns:
A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2014, at 17:23:00
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on June 18, 2014, at 0:01:38
> Perhaps she felt indignant at the inequity of your selective protection and support bias.
I didn't mean to discount that theory. Bias can make me indignant, too. Like when a friend is discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2014, at 17:38:59
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-discrm » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 20, 2014, at 5:46:16
> it can be seen that there is not a post by you to the post by her to say that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and that what she wrote about me is not in accordance with a rule here.
A subset of readers could feel indignant at the inequity of my selective enforcement of the rules here.
> A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
No. Unless I change my mind.
> B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
Because I posted that in this thread.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2014, at 10:07:20
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2014, at 17:38:59
> > it can be seen that there is not a post by you to the post by her to say that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and that what she wrote about me is not in accordance with a rule here.
>
> A subset of readers could feel indignant at the inequity of my selective enforcement of the rules here.
>
> > A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
>
> No. Unless I change my mind.
>
> > B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
>
> Because I posted that in this thread.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...because I posted in this thread (that the defamation posted toward you, Lou, is not civil)...].
That only tells those readers that come to this board that the defamation is considered by you to be uncivil. The readers of the post where the defamation toward me is posted in the thread where it appears can not see that, and not until one sees it can they know it according to you.
What I am trying to accomplish here is to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing statements that put down Jews and arouse anti-Semitic feelings and those statements that defame me from being seen as civil by you and supportive by you and that by you allowing them to stand it will be good for this community as a whole. The remedy available to me now is to respond to your invitation to me to bring posts to you here for you to take remedial action to show that you do not ratify the anti-Semitism or defamation or validate it by leaving those statements to stand and post that they are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and that they are not in accordance with a particular rule of yours in the thread where they appear. As long as you allow the statements to stand, a subset of readers could think that hate is supportive by you and your deputies of record because you state that support takes precedence and you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because they could start a fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews because even small fire or even a match has the potential to start a forest fire.
But it is much more than that. For as the fire of hate burns, and you agree that the defamation is uncivil, a subset of readers could think that you are encouraging the hatred toward the Jews and me and to be further developing that here by you not applying your own rules and that up to six deputies also have not posted to what is plainly visible that could arouse antisemitic feelings and lead others to think poorly of me because the defamation toward me is allowed to stand by you and any deputy of record. The defamation toward me has effects of emotional/psychological consequences to me as of anyone else that are well-documented in the psychological literature. I have a better chance of escaping the emotional/psychological consequences of hatred and defamation posted toward me and ridicule and belittlement and the statements that decrease the respect toward me and can induce hostility toward me if you were to stop them now, for as long as they appear in the thread where they are posted, readers could think that you are encouraging more of the same hate to be posted here toward me.
Here is another one that you are leaving to be seen as supportive that defames me. The poster writes,[...Lou= A, Piece. Of. Work...].
I have the following concers.
A. Are you going to leave that statement to be seen as that it will good for this community as a whole outstanding without your tag-line, "Please be civil" posted to it in the thread where it appears?
B. If not , why not?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2014, at 1:15:08
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 22, 2014, at 10:07:20
> > > A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
> >
> > > B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
> >
> > Because I posted that in this thread.
>
> That only tells those readers that come to this board that the defamation is considered by you to be uncivil. The readers of the post where the defamation toward me is posted in the thread where it appears can not see that, and not until one sees it can they know it according to you.True. If you'd like to post to that thread a link to this thread, you're welcome to.
> The defamation toward me has effects of emotional/psychological consequences to me as of anyone else that are well-documented in the psychological literature. I have a better chance of escaping the emotional/psychological consequences of hatred and defamation posted toward me and ridicule and belittlement and the statements that decrease the respect toward me and can induce hostility toward me if you were to stop them now
I wouldn't want to feel ridiculed or belittled or disrespected, either.
> Here is another one that you are leaving to be seen as supportive that defames me.
> I have the following concers.
> A. Are you going to leave that statement to be seen as that it will good for this community as a whole outstanding without your tag-line, "Please be civil" posted to it in the thread where it appears?
> B. If not , why not?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html> > Lou = A. Piece. Of. Work.
= a complicated, difficult, or eccentric person
I have to agree, that could lead you to feel accused or put down, so I'd consider it uncivil.
Again, I'm just going to post that in this thread.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2014, at 11:09:34
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2014, at 1:15:08
> > > > A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
> > >
> > > > B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
> > >
> > > Because I posted that in this thread.
> >
> > That only tells those readers that come to this board that the defamation is considered by you to be uncivil. The readers of the post where the defamation toward me is posted in the thread where it appears can not see that, and not until one sees it can they know it according to you.
>
> True. If you'd like to post to that thread a link to this thread, you're welcome to.
>
> > The defamation toward me has effects of emotional/psychological consequences to me as of anyone else that are well-documented in the psychological literature. I have a better chance of escaping the emotional/psychological consequences of hatred and defamation posted toward me and ridicule and belittlement and the statements that decrease the respect toward me and can induce hostility toward me if you were to stop them now
>
> I wouldn't want to feel ridiculed or belittled or disrespected, either.
>
> > Here is another one that you are leaving to be seen as supportive that defames me.
> > I have the following concers.
> > A. Are you going to leave that statement to be seen as that it will good for this community as a whole outstanding without your tag-line, "Please be civil" posted to it in the thread where it appears?
> > B. If not , why not?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > > Lou = A. Piece. Of. Work.
>
> = a complicated, difficult, or eccentric person
>
> I have to agree, that could lead you to feel accused or put down, so I'd consider it uncivil.
>
> Again, I'm just going to post that in this thread.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I have to agree..I'd consider it uncivil...I'm just going to post that in this thread (I am not going to post my tag-line, "Please be civil" to the statement where it is posted, Lou}...you can post a link to it here in this thread...].
Your TOS states that you will post a warning at the first instance of something being uncivil by a poster, and then block the poster on the next instance with your formula in your TOS. Here you are not doing that and ask me to link to it. If I was to do that by linking your statement here to the post where it is posted,
A. Would that also constitute a warning to the poster?
B. If it was after a previous warning, would you issue a block to that poster now?
C. If not, why not?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2014, at 0:12:02
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-tupstn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2014, at 11:09:34
> Your TOS states that you will post a warning at the first instance of something being uncivil by a poster, and then block the poster on the next instance with your formula in your TOS. Here you are not doing that and ask me to link to it. If I was to do that by linking your statement here to the post where it is posted,
> A. Would that also constitute a warning to the poster?Sure, I can't think of a reason not to.
> B. If it was after a previous warning, would you issue a block to that poster now?
I might or might not. It would depend. Was it after a previous warning?
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on June 26, 2014, at 0:50:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2014, at 0:12:02
>> > B. If it was after a previous warning, would you issue a block to that poster now?
>>I might or might not. It would depend. Was it after a previous warning?
Oh don't keep me in suspense, Dr. Bob. Do it. What's a little more hypocrisy at this point? Your pet will be so pleased at how his puppet performed for him.
Lou = The Perfect Deputy
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2014, at 9:26:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on June 26, 2014, at 0:50:24
> >> > B. If it was after a previous warning, would you issue a block to that poster now?
>
> >>I might or might not. It would depend. Was it after a previous warning?
>
> Oh don't keep me in suspense, Dr. Bob. Do it. What's a little more hypocrisy at this point? Your pet will be so pleased at how his puppet performed for him.
>
> Lou = The Perfect DeputyFriends,
It is written here,[...Lou=...]
The statement could lead readers to think that I am the subject person. The subject then could be hypocrisy, pets and puppets.
But is that really what is in discussion here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2014, at 15:17:26
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2014, at 0:12:02
> > Your TOS states that you will post a warning at the first instance of something being uncivil by a poster, and then block the poster on the next instance with your formula in your TOS. Here you are not doing that and ask me to link to it. If I was to do that by linking your statement here to the post where it is posted,
> > A. Would that also constitute a warning to the poster?
>
> Sure, I can't think of a reason not to.
>
> > B. If it was after a previous warning, would you issue a block to that poster now?
>
> I might or might not. It would depend. Was it after a previous warning?
>
> Bob
Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?
B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2014, at 16:11:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2014, at 1:15:08
> > > > A. Will you post to the defamatory statement about me here in the thread where it appears that it is not in accordance with your rules and not civil?
> > >
> > > > B. If not, why not, so I can post my response to you here?
> > >
> > > Because I posted that in this thread.
> >
> > That only tells those readers that come to this board that the defamation is considered by you to be uncivil. The readers of the post where the defamation toward me is posted in the thread where it appears can not see that, and not until one sees it can they know it according to you.
>
> True. If you'd like to post to that thread a link to this thread, you're welcome to.
>
> > The defamation toward me has effects of emotional/psychological consequences to me as of anyone else that are well-documented in the psychological literature. I have a better chance of escaping the emotional/psychological consequences of hatred and defamation posted toward me and ridicule and belittlement and the statements that decrease the respect toward me and can induce hostility toward me if you were to stop them now
>
> I wouldn't want to feel ridiculed or belittled or disrespected, either.
>
> > Here is another one that you are leaving to be seen as supportive that defames me.
> > I have the following concers.
> > A. Are you going to leave that statement to be seen as that it will good for this community as a whole outstanding without your tag-line, "Please be civil" posted to it in the thread where it appears?
> > B. If not , why not?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > > Lou = A. Piece. Of. Work.
>
> = a complicated, difficult, or eccentric person
>
> I have to agree, that could lead you to feel accused or put down, so I'd consider it uncivil.
>
> Again, I'm just going to post that in this thread.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
Would you agree that:
A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?
B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate? I base this on psychological concepts that are too comprehensive to post here now.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on June 26, 2014, at 21:02:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2014, at 0:12:02
Please do block me, dr bob. If you don't this will probably be brought up for years. Block me a week for every one of my posts Lou objects to. Double it if you wish. Don't worry about the one year cap. Don't hesitate to go all the way back to 2001.
It would be nice if once you appeased Lou with my blocks, you asked Lou not to ever mention me again in terms of fostering anti semetism. Or in any other negative way.
That would make me far happier than being able to post and having to read over and over again Lou's charges towards me.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:09:31
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2014, at 21:02:59
> Please do block me, dr bob.
I see this thread as primarily for The Hsiung-Pilder discussion. So I've redirected some other posts to a separate thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1067567.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psychofht » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2014, at 16:11:41
> Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.htmlBut this one I'll count as a warning:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html> B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
I'd say I was following a different policy now.
--
> Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> Would you agree that:
> A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?I agree, that could happen.
> B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
I agree, that could happen.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2014, at 7:35:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
> > Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> > A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?
>
> Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> But this one I'll count as a warning:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
>
> I'd say I was following a different policy now.
>
> --
>
> > Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> > I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> > Would you agree that:
> > A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> > B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm following a new policy now...].
Would you agree:
A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?
Fill in:
And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
C. The new policy is:______________________
D. I changed the original policy because______________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2014, at 23:32:30
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pild discussion-arbcapdis » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 29, 2014, at 7:35:14
> Would you agree:
> A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
> B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?Do you think I'm out of compliance with part of the FAQ? Like there's the law, and the interpretation of the law, there's the FAQ, and policy.
> Fill in:
> And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
> C. The new policy is:______________________
> D. I changed the original policy because______________I feel I've explained that already. Can you find it in the archives?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 30, 2014, at 20:32:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:39:12
> > Would it count as a warning, or go to a block, if I did not post a link to your post that said that it was uncivil? If not:
> > A. Would you agree that by you not counting it, a subset of readers could have a rationale basis for thinking that you are encouraging and/or developing statements that put me down or accuse me?
>
> Hmm, you have a point. This one has already been archived:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055869.html
>
> But this one I'll count as a warning:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066855.html
>
> > B. Would you agree that you are not abiding by your own rule that says that you do not wait to sanction uncivil posts because one match could start a forest fire?
>
> I'd say I was following a different policy now.
>
> --
>
> > Now there are two people that posted what you agree is uncivil toward me and you have not posted your tag-line to where the post is posted in the thread to "Please be civil".
> > I am unsure as to what your intent is here by you not applying your formula for sanctioning uncivil statements even though you agree that the statements are uncivil.
> > Would you agree that:
> > A. That the longer you do not post your tag-line to be civil to those two statements, that hostility could be encouraged toward me?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> > B. That since I am trying to stop you and your deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand, and you agree that readers could see the statements in discussion now that you admit are uncivil but also will not post your tag-line to be civil to the statement where it is posted ,that if statements that put me down or accuse me, by being allowed to be seen as supportive by you, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate?
>
> I agree, that could happen.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You agree that statements here that put me down or accuse me that are allowed to stand without you posting your tag-line to "Please be civil" to the statement in the thread where it appears, could have the effect of advancing anti-Semitic hate and that the longer those statements go without your tag-line to "Please be civil", that hostility could be encouraged toward me.
Yet today, the defamatory statement that I am a disturbed person is allowed to remain without your tag-line. You say that it is archived as to your reason to allow it to stand. I have the following concerns:
A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board, something like:
A. It is not in accordance with our rules here to defame another person. We do not ratify this slander but we will not tell the poster to be civil because we did not do it when it was posted and we have a secret reason for not doing it now;
or
B. We will not tell the person to be civil because we have a reason which is_______________
C. We regret not attending to this libel of Lou when the statement was posted, but we will allow it anyway.
D. We are allowing this obvious hatred to be posted against Lou here so that others could think that it is not against our rules and I give myself the option to not respond to his notifications to me so that others might not respond to him also and the post could go into the archives which allows us to leave it to be seen as supportive and that it will be good for this community as a whole.
E. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2014, at 7:06:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2014, at 23:32:30
> > Would you agree:
> > A. That you are not following your stated policy in your TOS now?
> > B. That you will change your TOS and re right yor original policy now to reflect the new policy?
>
> Do you think I'm out of compliance with part of the FAQ? Like there's the law, and the interpretation of the law, there's the FAQ, and policy.
>
> > Fill in:
> > And what is the new policy and why have you changed your original policy?
> > C. The new policy is:______________________
> > D. I changed the original policy because______________
>
> I feel I've explained that already. Can you find it in the archives?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here. What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire, and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you and the community to ignore my pleas to sanction defamation toward me and to ignore my pleas to sanction antisemitic statements the could lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down. If there is a change from your TOS, it is not visible in your TOS as stated in the FAQ.
Now if the FAQ is like a constitution, then your FAQ TOS is what establishes the rules here. If there is a "constitutional amendment", I would think that readers have the opportunity to know what that amendment is posted in a conspicuous manner so that readers know that you have changed your TOS here.
One way to do that would be to post on the top of each board an alert something like:
......NOTICE OF CHANGE TO THE TOS HERE.....
I have allowed defamation posted against Lou Pilder and I am allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand without posting a repudiation to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted, as in {No non-Christian will enter heaven. You can see this where I am allowing a member to call Lou a disturbed person and claim that since it is archived, I can not post my tag-line, "Please be civil" and you will not know if Lou sent a notification concerning the libel against him before I archived the libelous statement directed against Lou. This will be good for me and the community as a whole, although I will not tell you how it will be good for me and the community as a whole as of now. Those of you that have knowledge of European fascism, know of the tactic to arouse hatred toward the Jews called "the common good". That is analogous to "it will be good for the country, or community, as a whole". I am preventing Lou from posting links to historical documents concerning educating readers here about the tactics used by European fascism that was used to arouse hatred toward the Jews due to my prohibitions posted by me to him. If he was allowed to educate you in regards to how anti-Semitism is encouraged and developed in a community, then you could be informed of how it is done and by me prohibiting Lou from posting that educational material, readers could not be informed from him about what you could see if he was not prohibited by me. It is easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 1:45:54
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-itzpsoez » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 1, 2014, at 7:06:21
> A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
No one (except maybe you) notified me of it.
> B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
No, they're not public.
> C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
Which ones were the other ones, could you remind me?
> D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
Yes, that could happen.
> E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board
No, I see the FAQ as sufficient for other boards.
--
> I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here.
I don't believe I did.
> What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times
Yes.
> and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire,
That used to be my policy, but I don't think that's in the FAQ.
> and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications
Yes.
> but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you ... to ignore my pleas ...
I give myself the options of acting and not acting on all notifications.
--
> > C. The new policy is:______________________
I was recently reminded of a policy that I like:
> > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_carroll
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 7:16:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 1:45:54
> > A. What is your rationale for not attending to the statement when it was posted before it was archived, if you have one.
>
> No one (except maybe you) notified me of it.
>
> > B. Would you be willing to post your archives of notifications so that readers could have that information to make their own determination as to why you did not post your tag-line to "Please be civil" before it was archived?
>
> No, they're not public.
>
> > C. You have posted a type of repudiation to posts that were archived in this discussion already. What is the difference, if any, between those and the one that calls me a disturbed person?
>
> Which ones were the other ones, could you remind me?
>
> > D. Would you agree that since you agree that what has happened with just that post, that you could be seen by a subset of readers to be wanting to allow hatred posted against me to stand as that since the statement is not sanctioned, readers could think that it is not against your rules and they could think that you are ratifying the libel?
>
> Yes, that could happen.
>
> > E. Would you be willing to treat that statement in the same manner as the ones that you have already posted some sort of repudiation to as seen on the top of the faith board
>
> No, I see the FAQ as sufficient for other boards.
>
> --
>
> > I do not have any recollection of you striking any rules from your TOS here.
>
> I don't believe I did.
>
> > What stands that I know of, and then others could also know of, is that posters are to be civil at all times
>
> Yes.
>
> > and that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another because one match could start a forest fire,
>
> That used to be my policy, but I don't think that's in the FAQ.
>
> > and that you have a notification policy that you will act upon those notifications
>
> Yes.
>
> > but that you give yourself the option to act on my notifications or not because it will be good for you ... to ignore my pleas ...
>
> I give myself the options of acting and not acting on all notifications.
>
> --
>
> > > C. The new policy is:______________________
>
> I was recently reminded of a policy that I like:
>
> > > See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_carroll
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Let us examine the issues here in light of what can be seen. Here is one aspect of those:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
You state that you *will* act on notifications as that acting could either be that you notify the sender by email or such, or post in the thread involved. You then say that you will not act on *some* of my notifications because it will be good for you and the community as a whole to ignore my notification.
To be able to act on *some* of my notifications could lead a reasonable reader here to think that in order for you to discriminate between those that you will or will not act on, reading the notification would be required by you. For how else could you discriminate between those that you would act on and those that you would not act on?
But it is much more than that. For you state that I should consider any action on notifications to "come from all of us", which are the deputies of record and yourself. And also the deputies can act without your permission (if they wanted to). So a reasonable reader could conclude that if no action is taken on a notification from me, that a collusion between you and your deputies of record could have happened so that my notification is ignored by all of you acting in concert with each other to achieve the premeditated result that could happen from you and your deputies allowing my notification to go unacted upon. This could result in me being a victim of anti-Semitic violence or suffer extreme emotional distress from defamation and hostility being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record on the basis that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it could be considered to be not against your rules, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole (the *common good* used in European fascism) as your philosophy states here. You admit that all those things can happen as a result of you and your deputies of record being indifferent to my requests in the notifications from me. Readers could think that it is intentionally done by you and your deputies to allow the natural consequences to happen to me as a result of your ignoring my requests in those notifications that you ignore of mine. You agree that you have knowledge that by you ignoring my notifications, harm could come to me and Jews by the nature that anti-Semitic statements are allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as supportive on the basis that you will not post your tag-line to please be civil to the statement in the thread where it is originally posted. This is paramount in you allowing,{No no-Christian will enter heaven} to be seen as supportive in the thread where it is originally posted. Readers could see that the statement stands without you posting a repudiation linked to it where it is posted originally. Readers are told in your TOS that not until it is seen can one know it. I am pleading with you to this day to stop the potential harm that could come to Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians because the statement is analogous to {No Jew or no Islamic person will enter heaven} which insults those faiths to the nth degree. You can continue to allow the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole (the common good) to allow it to be seen as supportive to you. But I say to you, that as a psychiatrist you could be aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the condoning by you and notifications in order to foster anti-Semitic hate and hostility toward me in your community. You say that whatever you do for readers to trust you because what you do will be good for this community as a whole. With that type of reasoning, genocide could be seen as being good for a country as a whole. I will not let you use the Jewish people or me to be degraded by you and your deputies of record.
Lou Pilder
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.