Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2015, at 5:12:27
In reply to Lou's warning-beaknott, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2015, at 18:05:32
> > > Lou, this is a support group
> > >
> > > it is not
> > >
> > > i repeat not
> > >
> > > your soap box
> > >
> > > i am beginning to think you are just a bad and evil experiment that was introduced to the site
> > >
> > Friends,
> > Be not deceived. The poster says that I am wrong and not supportive. That could lead you to think of me in a false light because Mr. Hsiung is allowing the false statements to be seen as being supportive. And worse, that by him allowing it he thinks that his community that he visions will be gooder for allowing it. And worser, he wants you to try to trust him in what he doing to me here by allowing the harm that could come to me from defamation being allowed to be seen as supportive by him. And even worse, I am denied the equal protection of his rules by him leaving my notifications outstanding. And even worser upon the worser, he posts the swastika and the picture of the death camp that could arouse antisemitc feelings here and allow people to laugh at me as that I have to suffer humiliation by him as he can break his own rules and hold me to the rules that he can be a hypocrite in allowing what could lead Jews to be insulted in a site for support, making the swastika to be seen as supportive by him that could encourage more posters to post with impunity anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation against me.
> > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> Be not deceived. The poster says that I am not supportive and wrong. The poster does not specify what in the posts of mine constitute not being supportive, not what I am wrong about. And is being ambiguous supportive? But it is much worse than that. For by the poster not specifying in relation to what I post here what is wrong and not supportive, they could think anything that I post is wrong and not supportive. And that could be thought to be supportive by the poster because it is allowed to stand which means in relation to Mr. Hsiung's policy, that it is supportive by him and worse, if what is not supportive is left to stand, he is allowing it because he thinks that in his vision of his community sometime in the future, the community will be improved. Is that supportive?
> My friends, if you die from believing the defamation against me here to be supportive would you be willing to suffer a horrible death so that this community will be better? That is what the historical record shows as leaders used what Mr. Hsiung says thousands of years ago to justify slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination and genocide and other crimes against humanity and that type of thinking is being used today for the same justification.
> But is what I wright wrong? I say not. for thousands of people are killed each year by these drugs being allowed to be promoted here as medicines by a doctor while not having to comply with the FDA rules for such. Is that supportive? How could that be supportive if readers could be seriously misled to believe that the drugs are safer than they really are and material facts are allowed to be left out? That in my book is being deceptive, not supportive. And what kind of community will be fostered here by these being allowed as readers could be killed by the drugs being allowed to be seen without the FDA warnings by a doctor? And mothers could be misled to drug their child thinking that there are no risks at all from taking these drugs. I am trying to save lives and that is supportive in my community as a whole. To keep me from warning readers is a backward vision of the past where Jews were promoted by the leader as inferior people to be shunned and expelled and have their voices stilled.
> Never again.
> Lou
> >
> Friends,
You can see the hate inflicted upon me here by Mr. Hsiung allowing third-party posters to post defamation and anti-Semitic propaganda against me here with impunity. His justification for him doing this to me is that by him allowing the members to inflict harmful messages against my character here, for allowing the hate to be seen as being supportive by him, his community in the future will be improved in some way as he thinks from some type of vision that he has to see into the future.
But is that type of thinking psychologically sound? Does the historical record show that leaders that used that type of justification to allow hate prosper their country in some way? But when it did, did the enslavement or murder of groups of people or children justify whatever benefit came from infanticide, slavery or genocide?
Here Mr. Hsiung justifies discrimination against me by him allowing members to be immune from his enforcement rule when they post accusative messages against my character that leads me to feel worthless. That he knows as a psychiatrist could cause me great emotional harm. He justifies him doing so on the basis that an unknown to me fantasy in his mind that he entertains overrules him acting on hate in disregard for his own mission of support and education to allow the hate so that the fantasy will emerge. That is what support means by him for he says that being supportive takes precedence and to be civil at all times and one match could start a forest fire so he doesn't wait to act on unsupportive posts. But what is this fantasy in his mind that he does not state but only says that what he does will be good for his community as a whole. But when will this emerge? He does not give a time frame so he could go to his grave thinking that whatever harm could come to readers here will be justified maybe a thousand years from now. What a terrible shame that you are asked to trust him in that him allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive, and him posting the swastika, that by him doing so the Golden Rule is being followed by him in that in his TOS he says to remember the Golden Rule and try to trust him in whatever he does here.
Now let us reason together. Where on this earth are people murdered and it is justified by using the fantasy that by doing so, it will be good for the country as a whole? And can that phrase even have a singular meaning? Do you not see the fallacy of reasoning here? Do you not see how there could be children killed by that kind of thinking? Their blood will not be upon me.
Let us look at this video:
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gywCn1T-Jug
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1083792
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20151119/msgs/1084267.html