![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:08:01
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting as to if your policy that members here could be led to feel accused or put down {even if names are not named} is still being applied equally here, or if it is civil now to write something that could lead someone to feel accused or put down even if names are not named.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:18:53
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:08:01
Dr. Hsiung,
I also would like clarifiction from you as to the policy that now writes from one of your deputies that the posting of a link that shows how historically the Jews were used as scapegoats by the use of propaganda that was state-sponsored is now deemed to put down Jews and can not be posted?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:31:43
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-policy changes, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:18:53
Dr. Hsiung,
In your FAQ, your policy states that your deputies do not have to intervene?
A. does this policy mean that they can fail to apply the same sanction to one member as they have to another member here?
1. If so, could that not lead others to have the potential to think that the administration could be constructed to have the potential to foster favoritism?
2. If so, could also your policy lead others to have the potential to think that you allow discrimination in the administration by allowing the deputies to fail to sanction to one member what they have done to another member?
3. If so, could there not be the potential for the deputies being allowed by you to leave statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned?
4. If so, could not if the deputies all fail to sanction what IMO is a statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings foster defamtion toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2006, at 23:01:43
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-policy changes-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 9:31:43
> I am requesting as to if your policy that members here could be led to feel accused or put down {even if names are not named} is still being applied equally here
The general idea here is still not to post anything that could lead others, even if they're not named, to feel accused or put down.
> I also would like clarifiction from you as to the policy that now writes from one of your deputies that the posting of a link that shows how historically the Jews were used as scapegoats by the use of propaganda that was state-sponsored is now deemed to put down Jews and can not be posted?
If something could lead Jews to feel put down, I think it's probably more civil not to link to it.
> In your FAQ, your policy states that your deputies do not have to intervene?
> could that not lead others to have the potential to think that the administration could be constructed to have the potential to foster favoritism?It could be interpreted by others in various ways. Still, I think it's a reasonable policy.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 7:56:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on October 6, 2006, at 23:01:43
DR. Hsiung,
Could we look at my request to you and your reply to me? If so, , my request to you was the following:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692047.html
Your reply to me wrote that,[... you think that your policy is >reasonable<...](deputies do not have to intervene).
Could you then write in this thread what rational you use as an authority to establish that your policy here in a mental-health community, to allow your deputies to leave statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and could have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew if the statements go unsanctioned, to be {reasonable}?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2006, at 0:27:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 7:56:13
> Could you then write in this thread what rational you use as an authority to establish that your policy here in a mental-health community, to allow your deputies to leave statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and could have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew if the statements go unsanctioned, to be {reasonable}?
I've already written about that...
Bob
Posted by mike lynch on October 12, 2006, at 19:43:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2006, at 0:27:05
> I've already written about that...
>
> BobMaybe you could recount what you've said about this, or provide a link to what you've said about it, since obviously it is unclear to some.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2006, at 2:21:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by mike lynch on October 12, 2006, at 19:43:48
> Maybe you could recount what you've said about this, or provide a link to what you've said about it
Sorry about that. Here's one:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 13, 2006, at 6:59:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 7:56:13
> DR. Hsiung,
> Could we look at my request to you and your reply to me? If so, , my request to you was the following:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692047.html
> Your reply to me wrote that,[... you think that your policy is >reasonable<...](deputies do not have to intervene).
> Could you then write in this thread what rational you use as an authority to establish that your policy here in a mental-health community, to allow your deputies to leave statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and could have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew if the statements go unsanctioned, to be {reasonable}?
> Lou Pilder
>
> DR. Hsiung,
Above is my request for you to write what rational or authority you use to say that your policy that allows deputies to leave posts unsanctioned that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or foster defamation toward Jews and/or me as aJew on your forum to go unsanctioned, to be reasonable.
Your reply to Mike, who asked for you to post what you wrote that said that you have written about it before, brought up a link that of a discussion in another thread.
Your citing of;
[...the question foe me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
In determining as to if your resply to Mike answers my question to you or not, first let us look at the question that I had to you that Mike was also looking for an answer to.
The question is about your rule that says that deputies never have to intervene.
The word "intervene" is a word that is used to describe when a third party,in this case a deputy, has a function to be >protective< to do something to stop something that could cause harm to someone as their function to sanction by the way of three different ways. An example of the use of intervene, could be to intervene to stop a fight, such as,[..the teacher steppped in to {intervene} betwen the two students to stop a fight...]. Or, the teacher intervened to stop another student from posting a racist flyer on the wall.
In looking at your reply to Mike by citing the link to another thread, I have many concerns as to if your reply to Mike answers my question to you as to [what your rational is for saying that your policy of saying that deputies never have to intercede is {reasonable}]. Your reply to Mike, if it is the same reply to me, talks possibly about deputies leaving posts that are discrimmnatory unsanctioned that are those that they are asked to sanction when they see them a second time, verses them sanctioning them when they see them the first time on the present, for you wrote,[...to focus on the past or on the present...].
My question to you was what is your rational for your rule that says that deputies never have to intervene, which could be the present, to establish that your rule is reasonable. I would like to continue in regards to my concerns here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 13, 2006, at 17:02:59
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Mike-A » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 13, 2006, at 6:59:29
Friends,
In this discussion, could we use the following for what could be discriminatory?
Something is discriminatory if it is;
A. causing someone to be unfairly treated
B. in particular, but not limited to because of;
1.prejudice about race
2 prejudice about religion
3.prejudice about ethnicity
4.prejudice about gender
5. other unfair treatment not stated
C. harassing someone on the basis of the above
D. retaliation on the basis of the above
E. allowing statements that stereotype or make assumptions about the group of the patrs in (B)
F. denying the equal standard to one in (B)
G. practices that have the effect of discrimination, without regard to intent
H. denial to reasonably accomodtae the religious belief of one, while accomodating the religious belief of others
K.other good and just definitions of discriminatory
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 21:08:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2006, at 2:21:45
> > Maybe you could recount what you've said about this, or provide a link to what you've said about it
>
> Sorry about that. Here's one:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
Your reply says that [...the question for me ...] is from a different thread.
Could we look at my question {here in this thread} which is what is your rational for saying that your rule that allows the deputies to be unwilling to intercede a {reasonable} rule when you write that one match can start a forest fire?
Lou Pilder
Posted by muffled on October 15, 2006, at 19:12:20
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-C » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 21:08:45
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:20:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2006, at 2:21:45
Dr. Hsiung,
You replied to Mike with a link that said that [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or the present...]
My request to you was in the following post.
I asked for you to write your rational for having your policy that allows your deputies to not have to intervene when the statements could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to foster defamtion toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum if the statements were allowed to stand unsanctioned, as to why you write that you think that your policy is reasonable.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692936.html
Are you saying that your answer means that;
[...Posts that do accuse Jews or put them down can be left unsanctioned by the deputies and that could be a reasonable policy here,because even if that could constitute discrimination by being left unsanctioned, your thinking is to ask yourself not if the leaving them unsanctioned could cause discrimination to occur, due to the that you use the criteria of to think if it is {more helpful} to let those posts of that nature stand unsanctioned so you or the forum's members or both could {focus on the present}? If so, why could you not {focus on the present} if the deputies did sanction them since posts that accuse or put down others are sanctioned?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2011, at 20:17:28
In reply to Lou's response to Dr.Hsiung's reply to Mike-D » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 20:20:26
> Dr. Hsiung,
> You replied to Mike with a link that said that [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or the present...]
> My request to you was in the following post.
> I asked for you to write your rational for having your policy that allows your deputies to not have to intervene when the statements could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to foster defamtion toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum if the statements were allowed to stand unsanctioned, as to why you write that you think that your policy is reasonable.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692936.html
> Are you saying that your answer means that;
> [...Posts that do accuse Jews or put them down can be left unsanctioned by the deputies and that could be a reasonable policy here,because even if that could constitute discrimination by being left unsanctioned, your thinking is to ask yourself not if the leaving them unsanctioned could cause discrimination to occur, due to the that you use the criteria of to think if it is {more helpful} to let those posts of that nature stand unsanctioned so you or the forum's members or both could {focus on the present}? If so, why could you not {focus on the present} if the deputies did sanction them since posts that accuse or put down others are sanctioned?
> LouMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder provision, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2012, at 18:11:57
In reply to Lou's reminder to to Mr.Hsiung-eyeknpsee, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2011, at 20:17:28
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > You replied to Mike with a link that said that [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or the present...]
> > My request to you was in the following post.
> > I asked for you to write your rational for having your policy that allows your deputies to not have to intervene when the statements could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to foster defamtion toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum if the statements were allowed to stand unsanctioned, as to why you write that you think that your policy is reasonable.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692936.html
> > Are you saying that your answer means that;
> > [...Posts that do accuse Jews or put them down can be left unsanctioned by the deputies and that could be a reasonable policy here,because even if that could constitute discrimination by being left unsanctioned, your thinking is to ask yourself not if the leaving them unsanctioned could cause discrimination to occur, due to the that you use the criteria of to think if it is {more helpful} to let those posts of that nature stand unsanctioned so you or the forum's members or both could {focus on the present}? If so, why could you not {focus on the present} if the deputies did sanction them since posts that accuse or put down others are sanctioned?
> > Lou
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder provision, the above.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
In regatds to your policy to keep reminding you, the above
Lou Pilder
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.