![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 692 to 716 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 4, 2014, at 9:03:47
In reply to What if subsets of readers disagree?, posted by pontormo on September 3, 2014, at 12:03:21
> I don't know if you recall it, Lou, but earlier this year, a subset of readers wrote that Bob showed preference toward you. They said he did not sanction posts of yours that, if they were posted by others, would have been sanctioned. They said that you were given a greater right to make statements that others would not have been allowed to make without a sanction.
>
> It seems to me, then, that a subset of readers could think (and indeed did think) that you were being treated with greater respect and esteem than other posters at psychobabble. And if that is the case, they could also think that your reputation is being enhanced by Bob, and that you are being raised in the esteem of readers. They could think that readers might conclude that your posts are to be taken more seriously and given more importance than the posts of other posters.
>
> And they could be (and were apparently) led to think that Bob is unfair to some posters on psychobabble (ie to the posters who would have been sanctioned).
>
> In sum, a subset of readers could come to that conclusion, and yet another subset of readers could come to the conclusion that Bob allows defamation against you to stand, and that your reputation is therefore harmed.
>
> It then becomes the question whether Bob should take further steps to show that no posters are being given preference and that all posters are being treated equally.
>
> Could you answer the following questions, in a brief statement of an answer to each, so I could understand it clearly?
>
>
> 1. How does one know which subset of readers is correct? If being seen to be more civil by one subset involves being seen as less fair by another subset, which subset is more important? which subset's needs should be attended to? what if the FAQ, or prior statements of rules, through posts, or the tenets of any religion or theory that Bob believes in, do not give clear directions as to how to resolve such conflicts?
>
> 2. How should Bob decide whether to act, when his judgment is questioned by subsets of readers with opposite beliefs?
>
> 3. Can he use his judgment in deciding how to resolve this problem?
>
> 4. If he should not use his judgment, how should he come to a decision as to whether to, or how to act?
>
> I believe that Bob holds you in esteem, and that this is clearly visible; and that he has given you a forum to express and to argue your point of view in a way that allows another subset of readers, such as myself, a chance to understand your views.
>
> But I would like to hear your answers to the questions that I have posed. This is not to start a debate with you on these questions, but to understand how you think on such issues.pontormo,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. What can be seen is what it is, it says what it says. What a subset of readers could think here concerning your concern about Mr. Hsiung using his judgment, is involving in my case, the allowing of statements that, in particular but not limited to, is defamation of the Jews. And also statements that defame me. His reasons given for him to justify his doing so in his own mind is that sometime in the future good will come to this community as a whole as a result of him using his judgment to allow anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, or if he was to post his tagline to please be civil to those anti-Semitic statements and the defamation against me here, it would not be in the best interests of this community in some way.
But the interests of this community is for support and education as stated as the mission here in Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ and that fairness and the Golden Rule used in his thinking to administer the forum. So a subset of readers could understand by what Mr. Hsiung is putting into the minds of readers here, is that by allowing anti-Semitism and defamation against me here to be seen as civil, that anti-Semitism and defamation of the Jews and me is civil in his thinking. That type of thinking then, is disclosed by Mr. Hsiung to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that it is in his TOS/FAQ as to be the mission of the forum, and those in concert with him can uphold hatred toward the Jews and me to be promulgated here and be in concert with Mr. Hsiung by posting anything here that could lead readers to think that they are condoning what is in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be allowed by him here as to be justified.
The Golden Rule has been used by atheists to ridicule the Jews. That is because they are ignorant of Judaism and have a false understanding of what the Golden Rule entails in Judaism. I am here in one aspect to stop that false understanding of the Golden Rule to be promulgated by men ignorant of Judaism. The fact that Mr. Hsiung has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from educating readers about Judaism as in the foundation revealed to me, while allowing the foundation of hatred toward the Jews, as in {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to stand is a policy that is against Judaism by disallowing the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me to be posted here. Anything that is against Judaism is anti-Semitic on its face.
There had been millions of people in the past that trusted those that said that it will be good for their country to allow anti-Semitism to be promulgated. And there have millions of Jews murdered by them. They can not speak here. I will speak for them.
Never again.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:40:59
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-mlisofphoarthot » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 9:30:56
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. The latitude by the judge could be in the degree of the sentence, but the judge could not say that what the person is being sentenced for was not against the rules, for if that was the case there would not be any sentence, for the person would be not guilty.
> Here you are the judge. But you are allowing what is against your rules to be seen as not against your rules. You could sanction the statement and still give latitude in your sentences by you not sanctioning the person, but by posting your tagline to please be civil to the statement that is against your rule.I consider asking someone to be civil to be a sanction.
> you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
True, a subset of readers could think that.
A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2014, at 8:38:49
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:40:59
> > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The latitude by the judge could be in the degree of the sentence, but the judge could not say that what the person is being sentenced for was not against the rules, for if that was the case there would not be any sentence, for the person would be not guilty.
> > Here you are the judge. But you are allowing what is against your rules to be seen as not against your rules. You could sanction the statement and still give latitude in your sentences by you not sanctioning the person, but by posting your tagline to please be civil to the statement that is against your rule.
>
> I consider asking someone to be civil to be a sanction.
>
> > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
>
> True, a subset of readers could think that.
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate...].
I am unsure as to what you want readers to believe by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False
A. By me not posting my tagline to please be civil to the anti-Semitic statements in question and the statements that defame you, Lou, I consider that to be supportive here.
B. By the fact that because I do not post my tagline to be civil to those, Lou, readers could think that anti-Semitism and defamation against you, Lou, is supportive.
C. It is my intent, Lou, to allow antisemitism and defamation against you, Lou, posted here without my tagline to please be civil and to be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, which could develop and create hate toward Jews and you, Lou.
D. I am deliberately allowing anti-Semitism and defamation against you , Lou, to stand here unsanctioned, in an experiment to see how readers react to me allowing hate to be seen as supportive.
E. It really doesn't matter to me, Lou, if you become a victim of anti-Semitic violence, or if other Jews also, or that the effects of defamation being allowed to be posted against you here, Lou, unsanctioned, inflict emotional distress to you, for I am supporting the community as a whole by doing that.
F. I have explored the legality of me allowing anti-Semitism and defamation toward you to be seen as civil here by me, Lou.
G. Fill in:
I have a rational basis, Lou, for saying that there could be a subset of readers that could think that {I am supporting the community as a whole} by giving it {an opportunity to deal with issues like hate}. If you, Lou, think that I mean that by allowing anti-Semitism and defamation against you, Lou, to be seen as civil here and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, that I am allowing that in order to see how members post about it, then here is my rational basis for thinking that a subset of readers could think that I am supporting the community as a whole, Lou. And if that is not what I mean, Lou, then here is what I do mean:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
Lou Pilder
Posted by bryte on September 6, 2014, at 14:28:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:40:59
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> Bob
>"The support and information in this group are provided primarily by: other group members"
A subset of readers could ask whether persistent use of and focus on I-statements could represent a subconscious effort by a host to select like-minded individuals.
That subset or another subset could ask whether I-statements focused on what a service provider gives invitees could be symptomatic of narcissistic dimensions.
That subset of readers might be informed by Belinda Jane Board's and Katarina Fritzon's 2005 study published in Psychology, Crime & Law that found an equivalent presence of narcissistic traits among senior business leaders and populations of psychiatric patients.
The subset might contemplate whether a person with narcissistic traits employed in an institutional setting might create an independent business where the traits could be more freely realized.
The subset might contemplate to what extent the structure of non-income-producing service business increases personal latitude for a sole owner as compared to a structure that relies on a panel of qualified leaders who help assure quality of service.
To assess the presence of a narcissistic dimension, that subset of readers might consider whether a service provider:
[*] demonstrates exaggerated self-importance as compared to the importance of peers, groups, communities or other individuals
[*] demonstrates a more than usual desire for attention and admiration by publicizing the individual's ostensibly charitable activities
[*] takes advantage of others to accomplish personal goals
[*] demonstrates a decreased capacity to empathize with others, including exaggerating perceived group benefits related to the person's systematic activities known to embarrass guests
[*] characterizes concerns as criticism, and demonstrates an exaggerated sensitivity to criticism, including enforcing sanctions against those who express concerns
[*] claims a right to be recognized as superior, such as by claiming an experimental project demonstrates the best of all alternatives
[*] exaggerates special achievements and talents, such as not correcting claims that give the subject original credit for technology freely obtained from someone else
[*] represents prolonged conflict as beneficial by claiming the conflict better exposes those involved to the subject of the conflict
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 14:33:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion - nrcstldr, posted by bryte on September 6, 2014, at 14:28:51
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> "The support and information in this group are provided primarily by: other group members"
>
> A subset of readers could ask whether persistent use of and focus on I-statements could represent a subconscious effort by a host to select like-minded individuals.
>
> That subset or another subset could ask whether I-statements focused on what a service provider gives invitees could be symptomatic of narcissistic dimensions.
>
> That subset of readers might be informed by Belinda Jane Board's and Katarina Fritzon's 2005 study published in Psychology, Crime & Law that found an equivalent presence of narcissistic traits among senior business leaders and populations of psychiatric patients.
>
> The subset might contemplate whether a person with narcissistic traits employed in an institutional setting might create an independent business where the traits could be more freely realized.
>
> The subset might contemplate to what extent the structure of non-income-producing service business increases personal latitude for a sole owner as compared to a structure that relies on a panel of qualified leaders who help assure quality of service.
>
> To assess the presence of a narcissistic dimension, that subset of readers might consider whether a service provider:
>
> [*] demonstrates exaggerated self-importance as compared to the importance of peers, groups, communities or other individuals
>
> [*] demonstrates a more than usual desire for attention and admiration by publicizing the individual's ostensibly charitable activities
>
> [*] takes advantage of others to accomplish personal goals
>
> [*] demonstrates a decreased capacity to empathize with others, including exaggerating perceived group benefits related to the person's systematic activities known to embarrass guests
>
> [*] characterizes concerns as criticism, and demonstrates an exaggerated sensitivity to criticism, including enforcing sanctions against those who express concerns
>
> [*] claims a right to be recognized as superior, such as by claiming an experimental project demonstrates the best of all alternatives
>
> [*] exaggerates special achievements and talents, such as not correcting claims that give the subject original credit for technology freely obtained from someone else
>
> [*] represents prolonged conflict as beneficial by claiming the conflict better exposes those involved to the subject of the conflict
>
> Bryte,
In response to that Mr. Hsiung wrote,[...a subset of readers could think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate...], you wrote,[...to assess the presence of a narcissistic dimension, that subset of readers might consider whether a service provider...]
A. [...claims a right to be recognized as superior, such as by claiming an experimental project demonstrates the best of all alternatives...]
B. [...represents that prolonged conflict as beneficial by claiming the conflict better exposes those involved to the subject of the conflict...].
I think that you have a rational basis for posting those two in response to what Mr. Hsiung posted that a subset of readers could think that he is supporting the community as a whole by giving it the opportunity to deal with issues like hate if:
1. The target of the hate is myself and Jews by the nature that the discussion has me as the target person and that I am objecting to Mr. Hsiung allowing anti-Semitism and defamation toward me to be seen as civil where those statements are originally posted
and,
B. That if that was the case, a discussion of hate could take place here even if Mr. Hsiung posted his tagline to please be civil to the anti-Semitic statements that are in discussion.
But this could all be moot if what Mr. Hsiung posted ,to him means something else which I am awaiting his response to my questions to him for clarification of that.
But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see? And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive , and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
is deserved?
Lou
Posted by bryte on September 9, 2014, at 0:28:41
In reply to Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp » bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 14:33:41
> But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see?
>And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
> is deserved?
> LouThere is a rational basis for a subset of readers to conclude misinformed consent enforces acceptance of some flawed assumptions that:
1. No results are promised
2. If there are results, the results will be beneficial for a "group"
3. If one person suffers harm by way of embarrassment or otherwise, a greater number of persons will benefit.
4. Even if no individual benefits, the "group" may benefit.
4. A host's good intentions are sufficient to mitigate whatever harm any one person or group of persons suffers from activities claimed to benefit an amorphous stream of visitors classified as a group.Those assumptions do not fulfill the promises of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath addresses patients in the plural and in the singular. In no case does the oath address a physician's obligation to a group. It says a physician will prescribe regimens for the benefit of patients, but will not harm any one.
The oath does not say a physician will prescribe regimes that benefit some patients at the expense of others.
The oath does not say "I swear to do no harm... except when I am not involved in a doctor-patient relationship, at which time I may do things that are harmful to some but in my judgement may benefit others."
It says "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients." Every house. Whether wearing the stethoscope or the golf cleats. Whether entering as a practitioner or as a scholar. Whether as a private business owner hosting a milieu online at no cost to invitees or as a caregiver for an academic institution providing a confidential milieu under contractual employment obligations.
In no phrase of the Hippocratic Oath nor in standards of care expected of healthcare professionals -- on the job or otherwise -- are found expectations or justifications for a caregiver to provide non-emergency care for some knowing that others may suffer harm. When two alternatives exist, one which may harm some but theoretically benefit others, and the other alternative may do no harm and may benefit others, the least harmful option would always be better.
A physician may no more single out one person to endure greater harm for the good of a group than a physician may ethically administer lethal drugs under license of a court order. As Lou is wont to remind us, governments have at times licensed physicians to commit the most egregious harm, but that license does not make it ethical - nor lawful under international law.
Especially when a doctor invites visitors to a group in part for the purpose of informing case studies that fulfill a significant portion of his professional imperative to publish or perish a doctor must avoid situations that systematically embarrass, frustrate or disadvantage some invitees.
A subset of readers could consider it misguided for a physician to choose whom will enjoy protection of administrative interventions among a stream of visitors, and claim the administrator's privately held reason justifies overtly protecting some by publicly embarrassing those who may offend them while denying protection to others.
A less harmful means exists to reach the same end. Offending content can be removed. It is the practice used by the vast majority of service providers managing interaction among hundreds of millions of social media users.
An assertion that the better approach is to embarrass some members, some times, for the benefit of other visitors at other times requires evidence. That evidence is not found in the continuing disquiet and discomfort expressed among guests of this social network.
Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit others - certainly not in a non-emergency setting the physician created in part to provide cases for study. In triage situations, physicians may select some patients to receive care while others do not, but ethical doctors do not otherwise invite patients to join groups where some will ostensibly benefit by witnessing embarrassment of others.
Ethical physicians in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2014, at 6:29:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp, posted by bryte on September 9, 2014, at 0:28:41
> > But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see?
>
>
> >And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
> > is deserved?
> > Lou
>
> There is a rational basis for a subset of readers to conclude misinformed consent enforces acceptance of some flawed assumptions that:
>
> 1. No results are promised
> 2. If there are results, the results will be beneficial for a "group"
> 3. If one person suffers harm by way of embarrassment or otherwise, a greater number of persons will benefit.
> 4. Even if no individual benefits, the "group" may benefit.
> 4. A host's good intentions are sufficient to mitigate whatever harm any one person or group of persons suffers from activities claimed to benefit an amorphous stream of visitors classified as a group.
>
> Those assumptions do not fulfill the promises of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath addresses patients in the plural and in the singular. In no case does the oath address a physician's obligation to a group. It says a physician will prescribe regimens for the benefit of patients, but will not harm any one.
>
> The oath does not say a physician will prescribe regimes that benefit some patients at the expense of others.
>
> The oath does not say "I swear to do no harm... except when I am not involved in a doctor-patient relationship, at which time I may do things that are harmful to some but in my judgement may benefit others."
>
> It says "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients." Every house. Whether wearing the stethoscope or the golf cleats. Whether entering as a practitioner or as a scholar. Whether as a private business owner hosting a milieu online at no cost to invitees or as a caregiver for an academic institution providing a confidential milieu under contractual employment obligations.
>
> In no phrase of the Hippocratic Oath nor in standards of care expected of healthcare professionals -- on the job or otherwise -- are found expectations or justifications for a caregiver to provide non-emergency care for some knowing that others may suffer harm. When two alternatives exist, one which may harm some but theoretically benefit others, and the other alternative may do no harm and may benefit others, the least harmful option would always be better.
>
> A physician may no more single out one person to endure greater harm for the good of a group than a physician may ethically administer lethal drugs under license of a court order. As Lou is wont to remind us, governments have at times licensed physicians to commit the most egregious harm, but that license does not make it ethical - nor lawful under international law.
>
> Especially when a doctor invites visitors to a group in part for the purpose of informing case studies that fulfill a significant portion of his professional imperative to publish or perish a doctor must avoid situations that systematically embarrass, frustrate or disadvantage some invitees.
>
> A subset of readers could consider it misguided for a physician to choose whom will enjoy protection of administrative interventions among a stream of visitors, and claim the administrator's privately held reason justifies overtly protecting some by publicly embarrassing those who may offend them while denying protection to others.
>
> A less harmful means exists to reach the same end. Offending content can be removed. It is the practice used by the vast majority of service providers managing interaction among hundreds of millions of social media users.
>
> An assertion that the better approach is to embarrass some members, some times, for the benefit of other visitors at other times requires evidence. That evidence is not found in the continuing disquiet and discomfort expressed among guests of this social network.
>
> Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit others - certainly not in a non-emergency setting the physician created in part to provide cases for study. In triage situations, physicians may select some patients to receive care while others do not, but ethical doctors do not otherwise invite patients to join groups where some will ostensibly benefit by witnessing embarrassment of others.
>
> Ethical physicians in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue.
>
Bryte,
I appreciate your statements here that show that harm could be an outcome from Mr. Hsiung selecting which statements he will sanction and that you do see it. But it is much more than that.
You may already know that Mr. Hsiung has stated that he will act on notifications except that he will give himself the option of leaving my notifications outstanding. It is his thinking that what he does will be good for this community as a whole, and that readers are to try to *trust* him at that.
My question here is if you can see that by asking readers to trust him when he leaves harmful anti-Semitic and defamatory statements against me here to be seen as civil where they are originally posted, and by him using what a subset of readers could think to be using evasion and discrimination,in your opinion could constitute malicious actions to promote hatred toward the Jews and hostility toward me.
Let us look at this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:28
In reply to Re: doesn't even mean it's not against the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> >
> > Right:
> >
> > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting people to believe when they read that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly
True or false:
A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:29
In reply to Lou's reply- it's not against the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 8:31:20
> True or false:
> A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.False.
> B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
False.
> C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
> > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
> D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
False.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:30
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2014, at 17:51:55
> > True or false:
> > A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
>
> False.
>
> > B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
>
> False.
>
> > C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
>
> You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
>
> > > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
>
> > D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
>
> False.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in your answer to "D".
To clarify this, I would like for you to look at:
[ faith, 414011 ]
and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
My concern is in my question to you I had asked if links to anti-Semitic propaganda could be posted here and then Jews are to trust you in that you are being fair and doing what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You answered, "false"
So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:31
In reply to Lou's reply-untaged » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 19:35:46
> > > True or false:
> > > A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > > B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > > C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
> >
> > You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
> >
> > > > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
> >
> > > D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in your answer to "D".
> To clarify this, I would like for you to look at:
> [ faith, 414011 ]
> and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> My concern is in my question to you I had asked if links to anti-Semitic propaganda could be posted here and then Jews are to trust you in that you are being fair and doing what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You answered, "false"
> So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
> LouMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
In the post there is an offered link to John 5. In that link there are verses that are in question that I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean un that your answer here being 'false" to that posters can post links that have anti-Semitic content and that you want readers to try to trust you and that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking to allow the statements in question to be seen as supportive.
So do you want readers to not trust you in that by you allowing the link with the statements in question to be seen as civil by you and that it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by you since you have not posted your tagline to please be civil to the post?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:21:06
In reply to Lou's reply-untaged-1070996, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:31
> I would like for you to look at:
> [ faith, 414011 ]
> and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
--
> Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> In the post there is an offered link to John 5.In which post? This one by you?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:40:59
> > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
>
> True, a subset of readers could think that.
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.I'd like to revise that:
A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:10:03
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:21:06
> > I would like for you to look at:
> > [ faith, 414011 ]
> > and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> > So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
>
> If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
>
> --
>
> > Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> > In the post there is an offered link to John 5.
>
> In which post? This one by you?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
IN order to actuate what is in question about that the post uses {the only way}, we can do this by first:
A. Pulling up the post [ faith, 414011 ]
In order to have that post and no other, the 414011 has to be in the url strip, not in the subject line.
B. Then when that is pulled up, we go to the bottom of that page by the poster to see my response to the poster.
C. My response is to the article that the poster offers a link to, so we click on the link and go to P:314
D There in 314 is the phrase,{the only way}.
When I use your link, does it not go to a different article that also uses the {only way}? If so, then we have two different statements using the only way, one you addressed, but I do not see the one that I am bringing up to be addressed by you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:24:33
In reply to Lou's reply- Th Hsiung-Pildr discussion-tuonlywaze » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:10:03
> > > I would like for you to look at:
> > > [ faith, 414011 ]
> > > and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> > > So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
> >
> > If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> > > In the post there is an offered link to John 5.
> >
> > In which post? This one by you?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> IN order to actuate what is in question about that the post uses {the only way}, we can do this by first:
> A. Pulling up the post [ faith, 414011 ]
> In order to have that post and no other, the 414011 has to be in the url strip, not in the subject line.
> B. Then when that is pulled up, we go to the bottom of that page by the poster to see my response to the poster.
> C. My response is to the article that the poster offers a link to, so we click on the link and go to P:314
> D There in 314 is the phrase,{the only way}.
> When I use your link, does it not go to a different article that also uses the {only way}? If so, then we have two different statements using the only way, one you addressed, but I do not see the one that I am bringing up to be addressed by you.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
I have reviewed this part and the two articles by the poster are the same. What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised. But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:51:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
> > > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
> >
> > True, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> I'd like to revise that:
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> Bob
Mr Hsiung,
You wrote:
[..I'd like to revise that:
A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely...]Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself and that you think that it will be good for his community as a whole to do so. As to if that is likely for me as a Jew to feel put down, or to feel that Judaism is being put down when I read the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed here to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, I do not see any rational basis for anyone to think that it is unlikely for a Jew to feel put down when they see anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as civil and supportive by you here. If there are Jews that do not feel put down when they see the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, that does not mean that I have to not feel put down when I read those statements being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
The defamation toward the Jews in anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as supportive here, goes to all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. And a subset of readers could think
that you are using a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic hate to stand. I think those readers could have a rational reason to think that because you keep changing what you have written, which could lead a subset of readers to think that malice is what is driving you to keep the anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil and supportive by you and your deputies of record here. They could have a rational basis to think that because you keep changing what you write in an attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to stand where defamation to a group of people can cause harm and those readers could think that you know that and are doing it anyway.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 16:41:35
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ovphoartht » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:51:47
> What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
> But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
--
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itselfExactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 9:30:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
> > > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
> >
> > True, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> I'd like to revise that:
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate...].
You reply to me here comes from that I am in discussion with you to remediate posts that show anti-Semitic propaganda and statements that could lead me as a Jew to feel that my faith is being put down and that defamation also is posted here toward me that these statements can be seen as supportive where they are originally posted here on the basis that those posts with those statements are not sanctioned and your policy is that being supportive takes precedence so a subset of readers could think that the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation unsanctioned is considered to be supportive by you and that it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking for that to be seen on the basis that your TOS states that people are to try to trust you in what you do here because in your thinking it will be good for this community as a whole.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here. You say that you now want to revise what you said to be that there could also be some readers to think that because you are not sanctioning (those posts) which are those in discussion concerning the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation in question in this discussion {because the outcomes that you(Lou) fear are unlikely}.
This could mean that your revision does not replace your original statement that you are supporting the community by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate, but as I read it, there are now two reasons stated by you to me here for the anti-Semitic propaganda to be unsanctioned which could lead readers to think that anti-Semitism and defamation toward me here is supportive on the basis that you say that [...a subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you (Lou) fear are unlikely...].
In your first reason to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned, if you are wanting to mean that your intent for leaving the statements unsanctioned is so there could be a discussion about hate, I do not think that for a discussion of hate to take place here that anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation against me needs to be left unsanctioned in order for that type of discussion to take place on the basis that I think that type of discussion could take place even if those statements were sanctioned by you, could it not? If not, why not?
And if your intent was to leave the anti-Semitism and defamation in question unsanctioned so that you could provide a forum for a discussion of hate, I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here, nor does your revision erase what I feel from the anti-Semitism and defamation against me being allowed to be seen here as supportive by you where those posts are originally posted. You see, you agree that discrimination is considered to be an abuse of power. And discrimination could stigmatize those discriminated upon. Stigmatization can hurt recipients of that, and being the recipient of hate being allowed here to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 10:27:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 16:41:35
> > What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> > What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.
>
> True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
>
> > But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
>
> You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
>
> but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
>
> --
>
> > > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
> >
> > Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself
>
> Exactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote [... a subset of readers could think that it is unlikely that my actions, (Lou), would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith...].
Your actions could be that you will not post a repudiation to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them. If that is what you mean, there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed. And your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down, which is not overruled in your TOS/FAQ by that someone else may not think that.
Those that think that your actions of allowing antisemitism to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted, have a rational basis to think that your actions at least have IMHO the potential to think that your actions could lead Jews to feel that your are putting down their faith because you say that being supportive takes precedence and that statements that put down those of other faiths or could lead one to think that their faith is being put down, are not supportive. And the fact that you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, that subset of readers could think that you are putting down Jews because you think that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so by allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here. Your actions could then be considered by that subset of readers to constitute creating and developing anti-Semitic hate here, by controlling what is considered to be supportive by your thinking by saying that being supportive takes precedence.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 18:51:12
In reply to Lou's reply- Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cret/devl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 10:27:18
> > > What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> > > What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.
> >
> > True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
> >
> > > But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
> >
> > You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
> >
> > but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
> > >
> > > Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself
> >
> > Exactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote [... a subset of readers could think that it is unlikely that my actions, (Lou), would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith...].
> Your actions could be that you will not post a repudiation to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them. If that is what you mean, there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed. And your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down, which is not overruled in your TOS/FAQ by that someone else may not think that.
> Those that think that your actions of allowing antisemitism to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted, have a rational basis to think that your actions at least have IMHO the potential to think that your actions could lead Jews to feel that your are putting down their faith because you say that being supportive takes precedence and that statements that put down those of other faiths or could lead one to think that their faith is being put down, are not supportive. And the fact that you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, that subset of readers could think that you are putting down Jews because you think that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so by allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here. Your actions could then be considered by that subset of readers to constitute creating and developing anti-Semitic hate here, by controlling what is considered to be supportive by your thinking by saying that being supportive takes precedence.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it, so since you say that when you do ask for a revision that means that you think that there is what is unsupportive in the link, then readers could think that since you have not posted to revise to the poster, then what is in the link is supportive.
I am asking for you to consider the following:
I would like for you to post something like:
A. Readers, I know that the statements in the verses that Lou is asking for me to post a repudiation to are as he says. But I want you to know that I do not consider those verses that Lou is bringing here to our attention to be supportive.
B. Readers, I know that there could be a subset of readers that could think that I am not posting a sanction to the anti-Semitic statements here so that hate could be discussed. But I want you to know that the reason that I am not posting a sanction to those statements is different from that.
C. Readers, I know that there could be a subset of readers to think that I am not posting sanctions to the statements in question here that are part of historical anti-Semitic propaganda because by me allowing those to be seen as supportive, hatred toward the Jews could be created and developed by me. But I want you to know that is not the reason that I am leaving those statements to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted
If you could post all 3 of those, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2014, at 20:49:28
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ehynoe, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 18:51:12
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
--
> > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
>
> there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.True.
--
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:04:22
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2014, at 20:49:28
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
>
> You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
>
> 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
>
> 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
>
> > I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
>
> Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
>
> --
>
> > > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> >
> > there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.
>
> True.
>
> --
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
>
> > In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
>
> No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that a deputy did sanction that post.
What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
And anyway, you say that the poster could post any link even with anti-Semitic propaganda. And then you say that the poster could continue posting as long as they rephrase what is in the link. I see no request to the poster of the post in question that has John 5 in an offered link to rephrase what is in that link.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:23:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phntum » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:04:22
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
> >
> > You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
> >
> > 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
> >
> > 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> >
> > > I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
> >
> > Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> > >
> > > there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> >
> > > In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
> >
> > No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that a deputy did sanction that post.
> What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
> And anyway, you say that the poster could post any link even with anti-Semitic propaganda. And then you say that the poster could continue posting as long as they rephrase what is in the link. I see no request to the poster of the post in question that has John 5 in an offered link to rephrase what is in that link.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[..my policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
But your policy is that being supportive takes precedence. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. A subset of readers could think that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking.
When a subset of readers see that you will not sanction anti-Semitic propaganda because it is archived, they could think that it is not against your rules even with that you posted that you should revise what you said here about that. For the revision is only seen in that one post and is not made know in your FAQ of your changing your mind about your rule. The outcome from that could have tragic consequences to Jews as the historical record shows and as we speak anti-Semitic acts are committed all over the world fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda coming from the internet. A subset of readers here could think that anti-Semitism is supportive in your thinking on the basis that you say that support takes precedence and that you will not sanction archived posts that contain anti-Semitic content and that you changed your rule from to not post links with anti-Semitic content, period, to that one can post links with anti-Semitic content as long as they post another link that omits the antisemitic content. But the original link is still there. And the poster was not told to revise the link with the link to John 5 in it and did not post another substitute link.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:54:02
In reply to Re: posts in the archives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:40:51
> > 1. If you agree that there are posts in the archives that are identified by Lou Pilder as being prejudicial, why have you not edited the archives to reflect the appropriate sanctions to be placed on these posts?
> >
> > 2. If you do not agree that such posts exist, where might I find verbiage by you that asserts this fact.
>
> My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).
>
> > 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?
>
> What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...My policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
I have the following requests:
A. Would you be willing to post a {disclaimer}, which could not constitute a sanction, to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record?
B. If you would be willing to post a disclaimer, would you be willing to post something like the following to those posts that I have alerted you to that have antisemitic statements in them being allowed to be seen as supportive?
1. Readers,I know that a subset of readers could see that there is anti-Jewish thought that me and my deputies of record are allowing to be seen as supportive by us. And that could lead those readers to think that we are ratifying the anti-Jewish thought to be supportive by us. But be advised that I think that it will be good for this community as a whole to keep those statements without a disclaimer even though by allowing the statements that put down Jews to be seen as supportive by us could make it possible for antisemitsm to flourish here, but we disclaim that we are ratifying what the anti-Semitic statements purport and we will not post why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by us.
2. Readers, I know that there are statements here that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down being allowed to be seen as supportive by me and my deputies of record. But be advised that even though I have stated that my policy is that being supportive takes precedence, it is better for us and the community as a whole in my thinking, to leave what could expose Jews to harm, for we think it will be best for the benefit of some others, and for the community as a whole, to let the harm that could come to Jews to continue even though we could have posted a sanction when the post was initially posted, and we could post a sanction now, because we have a policy that overrules our policy that being supportive takes precedence.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:54:03
In reply to Lou's request- policy overules being supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 7:09:34
> > > 1. If you agree that there are posts in the archives that are identified by Lou Pilder as being prejudicial, why have you not edited the archives to reflect the appropriate sanctions to be placed on these posts?
> > >
> > > 2. If you do not agree that such posts exist, where might I find verbiage by you that asserts this fact.
> >
> > My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).
> >
> > > 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?
> >
> > What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...My policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
> I have the following requests:
> A. Would you be willing to post a {disclaimer}, which could not constitute a sanction, to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record?
> B. If you would be willing to post a disclaimer, would you be willing to post something like the following to those posts that I have alerted you to that have antisemitic statements in them being allowed to be seen as supportive?
> 1. Readers,I know that a subset of readers could see that there is anti-Jewish thought that me and my deputies of record are allowing to be seen as supportive by us. And that could lead those readers to think that we are ratifying the anti-Jewish thought to be supportive by us. But be advised that I think that it will be good for this community as a whole to keep those statements without a disclaimer even though by allowing the statements that put down Jews to be seen as supportive by us could make it possible for antisemitsm to flourish here, but we disclaim that we are ratifying what the anti-Semitic statements purport and we will not post why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by us.
> 2. Readers, I know that there are statements here that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down being allowed to be seen as supportive by me and my deputies of record. But be advised that even though I have stated that my policy is that being supportive takes precedence, it is better for us and the community as a whole in my thinking, to leave what could expose Jews to harm, for we think it will be best for the benefit of some others, and for the community as a whole, to let the harm that could come to Jews to continue even though we could have posted a sanction when the post was initially posted, and we could post a sanction now, because we have a policy that overrules our policy that being supportive takes precedence.
> "Dr. Bob"
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Here are some posst that if you are agreeing to post a disclaimer to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, that would like for you to post some type of disclaimer that shows that you and your deputes of record are not validating the anti-Semitic propaganda.
Lou Pilder
A. [ admin, 428781 ]
B. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
In the above, since you said that you think that it is good, I would like for you to post why you think it is good so that I can post my response to you.
C. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1004107.html
In the above, the statement in question is,[...made to suffer a horrible death by {them}
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.