![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:33
Would it be safe to presume that if a post has been up for a week and Dr. Hsuing has not issued a "Please rephrase," PBC or block that the post is acceptable?
The extreme alternative is the presumption that no post is acceptable until Dr. Hsuing has said that it is acceptable. That seems like an undue burden.
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 11:03:50
In reply to Acceptability of posts, posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:33
Thw aspect of this thread is strted with something like,[... no post is acceptable untill Dr. Hsiung has said that it is acceptable. That is not what {I} am saying.
I am saying that if a statement that has been requested to Dr. Hsiung for a determination as to its acceptability, or not, in relation to the guidlines of the forum reaims undertermineduntill Dr. Hsiung writes that it is acceptable or not acceptable. Dr. Hsing wrote to one of my requests that the statement that he had on the faith board by Jean Rouessaeu, wsa rightfully objected by me and he modified the faith board as a response to my request for a determination. Dr. Hsiung has also replied that a post , in his thinking, is acceptable. Either way, there havebeen determinations as to both posts being acceptable or not.
Now posts that do not have a request for a determination are different, and those are not the posts that are the subject of this discussion by me, but if one was to ask me if the posts that have no reuqests for a determionations are automaticcaly acceptable, I would answere that it is my opinion that those type of posts are {undetermined}and not necesarrily to be accepted to be acceptable. There could be IMO other reasons why people do not request that a post be determined to be acceptable or not.One reason, IMO, may be that they want the post to stay unaddressed because they want what the post says to be incorperated in the guidlines of the forum. Another reason, IMO, could be a political reason or, IMO, a reason not to request a determination as to fear, of some sort, if they request the determination.
Lou
Posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 11:24:13
In reply to Lou's response to some aspect of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 11:03:50
"Thw aspect of this thread is strted with something like,[... no post is acceptable untill Dr. Hsiung has said that it is acceptable." This interpretation of my words is inaccurate.
I have asked before that Lou Pilder not post to me. Having my words taken out of context seems to violate my previous request.
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 11:52:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to some aspect of this thread, posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 11:24:13
I am not posting to any spacific poster in this thread, for I am posting to the aspect of something about this thread, and there is no person posted to in the subject line or name given in the text to whom I am replieing to nor isthere in this post.
Lou
Posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:03
In reply to Lou's resonse to some aspect of thisthread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 11:52:59
Your thoughts, please.
Coral
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 5, 2004, at 22:21:16
In reply to Re: to Dr. Hsuing, posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:03
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 2:21:09
In reply to Lou's response to some aspect of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 11:03:50
> but if one was to ask me if the posts that have no reuqests for a determionations are automaticcaly acceptable, I would answere that it is my opinion that those type of posts are {undetermined}and not necesarrily to be accepted to be acceptable. There could be IMO other reasons why people do not request that a post be determined to be acceptable or not.One reason, IMO, may be that they want the post to stay unaddressed because they want what the post says to be incorperated in the guidlines of the forum. Another reason, IMO, could be a political reason or, IMO, a reason not to request a determination as to fear, of some sort, if they request the determination.
Hi Lou. Your thoughts here got me to thinking about this some more. Although we can't be absolutely sure that if a post has not been addressed by Dr. Bob in some way that is therefore acceptable, I would guess the vast majority of those that do not receive a Dr. Bob-intitiated sanction are in fact acceptable to the vast majority of the Babble community.
I think I would also disagree with your reasons a post might not be put up for determination. Your hypothesized reasons certainly could be factors, but I think it much more likely that the post did not trigger anyone to request special attention to it from Dr. Bob. At least that's usually how I view posts.
One concern I have with a large number of requests for determination is how this behavior might affect the rules here. We've already seen two new rules stemming at least indirectly from this. I think we need to have some credit for our abilities to function on this board as common sense, courteous people without a rule or precedent for every imaginable scenario.
What if we applied such fine distinction in rules to obeying traffic signs. Would we come to a stop at a stop sign and remain there forever because it does not also say Go?
I realize that is a facetious argument, but still, I worry about how complicated the rules will get here.
I'm a simple gal and much better at the big picture than minute details.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2004, at 1:49:44
In reply to Re: to Dr. Hsuing, posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:03
> Your thoughts, please.
Sorry, but it does seem addressed to the board at large...
Bob
Posted by coral on November 8, 2004, at 14:34:12
In reply to Re: previous request » coral, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2004, at 1:49:44
Dear Dr. Hsuing,
Actually, my request for your comments pertained to my original post titled "acceptability."
Sorry for the confusion.
However, I would still like your thoughts on my original post.
Thank you.
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2004, at 14:57:34
In reply to Re: previous request » coral, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2004, at 1:49:44
Dr. Hsiung,
In reference to my post that is in question, my post was about some aspect of the thread, not a reply to the poster. It was addressed to the forum at large, not a particular poster for no name is given in the subect line as to anyone in particular being replied to and in the text there is no poster in particular that the post is directed to.
I use this format because I had also requested your determination as to another poster here that posted {about my post} but did not post to me. I agree that this can be confusing and that is why I used the format as seen here because in the past you had written that this type of format that I used here does not constitut replying to someone that has requested to not post to them.
I honor anyone's request to {please do not post to me} that is written to me, and when I post to something that a person who has written to me to not post to them, then I am posting about what they posted, and I am not posting to them. It is my understanding that the provision to not post to someone does not prohibit that person from posting about what that poster posted.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2004, at 1:54:03
In reply to Acceptability of posts, posted by coral on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:33
> Would it be safe to presume that if a post has been up for a week and Dr. Hsuing has not issued a "Please rephrase," PBC or block that the post is acceptable?
In practice, it ends up working like that. I might miss something, but I don't like going back a week...
> The extreme alternative is the presumption that no post is acceptable until Dr. Hsuing has said that it is acceptable. That seems like an undue burden.
That would be more like one of those "moderated" groups in which everything needs to screened before being posted...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.