![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 48. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on July 1, 2014, at 9:46:05
In reply to Blocked for a year » Dinah, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2014, at 9:42:14
> Clearly I was uncivil to Lou, though my intent was to clarify Dr. Bob's policies, not to cause Lou any pain. I regret causing anyone pain.
>
> However, I have explained my intent and my regret before, and it is clearly not sufficient to atone for my poor behavior.
>
> Therefore, I am blocking myself from Babble for one year.
>
> I have posted this on this thread rather than on Admin, because it is important to Lou that administrative action be posted on *this* thread. Dr. Bob has declined to do so, so I am making a citizens block.I have blocked myself for a year. I don't have the time or energy to post PBC's on the many posts I have made over the years that have fostered antisemetism or been uncivil to you.
I request that you issue a citizens PBC on each and every one of those posts, referencing this block.
Then I request that since this matter is now disposed of with the maximum penalty, you refrain from mentioning me in any negative way in the future.
Of course, it's just a request. You can do what you like of course.
Posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2014, at 17:07:33
In reply to Lou, a request please, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2014, at 9:46:05
>>>...the many posts I have made over the years that have fostered antisemetism
Dinah, I trust you know what you are doing and why, but I hate that you chose to write this lie about yourself. I just cannot and will not let this statement exist here unrefuted. It's immoral for me to do so, maybe even unforgivable, by *my* standards in claiming to have any sort of positive relationship with you as a former deputy, fellow poster, battler of MH issues and friend.
You have never, would never, and will never post anything here at PB or anywhere else that fosters antisemitism. Lou can have his views and opinions as he has and will - that does NOT make them correct, factual, or substantiated. They are OPINIONS. Those are supposed to be grounded in *something* to be worthy...others reading here can judge for themselves if they can locate the substance behind his many anxiety-accusations against former and current deputies and Dr. Bob. Ever try to capture the wind?
Obviously, some subsets of someone can say that then my assertion what you wrote is false is also my "opinion," and so no more valid or accurate that Lou's. True, on its face. I will stand confidently on common sense and both our reputations here, letting the community decide if mine or Lou's view of your alleged antiemitism rings more true.
The truth prevails and will - or maybe already has - set you free. I just want it on the record - by me at least -that the statement I snipped out above has no relationship to truth in this universe or any other.
((Dinah)) Sorry circumstances and changes to the nature of your home here changed so drastically it has come to this. Sorry for you, myself and all former deputies, and strangely even for Dr. Bob, too.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 2:41:02
In reply to Lou, a request please, posted by Dinah on July 1, 2014, at 9:46:05
> I have blocked myself for a year.
>
> I request that you issue a citizens PBC on each and every one of those posts, referencing this block.
>
> Then I request that since this matter is now disposed of with the maximum penalty, you refrain from mentioning me in any negative way in the future.Interesting experiment. If the issue is a below-standard copilot, then suspending the copilot will address the issue. But if the issue is flying anxiety, it won't.
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 9:45:52
In reply to Re: pardon but I must briefly interrupt » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2014, at 17:07:33
True none of that stuff here. What the stuff is is pure stuff. That is how I feel. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 10:12:31
In reply to Re: pardon but I must briefly interrupt » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2014, at 17:07:33
> >>>...the many posts I have made over the years that have fostered antisemetism
>
> Dinah, I trust you know what you are doing and why, but I hate that you chose to write this lie about yourself. I just cannot and will not let this statement exist here unrefuted. It's immoral for me to do so, maybe even unforgivable, by *my* standards in claiming to have any sort of positive relationship with you as a former deputy, fellow poster, battler of MH issues and friend.
>
> You have never, would never, and will never post anything here at PB or anywhere else that fosters antisemitism. Lou can have his views and opinions as he has and will - that does NOT make them correct, factual, or substantiated. They are OPINIONS. Those are supposed to be grounded in *something* to be worthy...others reading here can judge for themselves if they can locate the substance behind his many anxiety-accusations against former and current deputies and Dr. Bob. Ever try to capture the wind?
>
> Obviously, some subsets of someone can say that then my assertion what you wrote is false is also my "opinion," and so no more valid or accurate that Lou's. True, on its face. I will stand confidently on common sense and both our reputations here, letting the community decide if mine or Lou's view of your alleged antiemitism rings more true.
>
> The truth prevails and will - or maybe already has - set you free. I just want it on the record - by me at least -that the statement I snipped out above has no relationship to truth in this universe or any other.
>
> ((Dinah)) Sorry circumstances and changes to the nature of your home here changed so drastically it has come to this. Sorry for you, myself and all former deputies, and strangely even for Dr. Bob, too.Friends,
It is written here,[...You (Dinah) have never..post anything here...that fosters anti-Semitism...].
The position of deputy here by Dinah can have responsibilities in certain jurisdictions as this site can go all over the world. And different jurisdictions apply different standards to publishers of on-line hate and defamation.
When Dinah wrote that she has made many posts here over the years that have fostered anti-Semitism, we can understand what the word {foster} entails.
To foster something is to encourage something or promote or develop something or advance something or cultivate something. The "something" here is anti-Semitism.
And how is anti-Semitism fostered? I have stated here that I will not allow it here. To allow it to be fostered could mean that I would not object to it, but I do object to it. I know, and a subset of readers could also know, that the rules here state that statements that could lead another to feel that their faith is being put down, are not in accordance with the rules here and are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. And if they are allowed to be seen as that they are not sanctioned by a link to the statement where it is posted to be civil, readers could think that it is not against the rules here.
There are jurisdictions where if a repudiation to an insult to a religion is not posted by a web site blogger, like this site, then that jurisdiction considers that the people that had the function to post the repudiation and did not do so, are considered to be ratifying the insult to that faith and held responsible just as they posted it themselves. So in that type of situation, let's say if a deputy allowed and insult to a faith to stand, it is if they are validating the insult as posting it themselves. In some jurisdictions, the blogger could be sentenced to death.
In one case, a person committed suicide and there was a post encouraging them to do so and the web site moderator did not intervene with a repudiation. The blogger was held liable for the death because the blogger did not post a repudiation and readers could then think that the blogger was validating whatever caused the person to commit suicide as if the blogger posted whatever it was themselves.
In cases of defamation, the U.S. is split now on if Mr. Hsiung an his deputies are liable for 3erd party posts that defame if they do not post a repudiation. This will be heard in the next session of the U.S. Supreme court in a case parallel to what is going on here where the owner of the site encouraged and fostered defamation toward a person by allowing 3erd party posters to openly post defamatory comments about the person's character and thus encouraged the liable by inaction. The site owner was held liable in some jurisdictions and not in others on the basis of if the web site owner is immune or not from liability of what others post. But if the site owner fosters the defamation, they lose their immunity in some jurisdictions. This is going to be heard in the High Court and I am preparing a Amicus Curie brief to show how, if allowed, Jews could be the subject of hate and anti-Semitism could be fostered by a web site by the owner and his deputies leaving my notifications outstanding and allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen as supportive without the owner posting his tag-line to be civil as he does for non-anti-Semitic statements in the thread to the statement where it was originally posted and how defamation is allowed to be posted against me by the owner saying that he gives himself the option of acting on my requests in the notifications or not when his policy is to act on them except for mine, where acting is to either post in the thread or contact the requester by email or such. Then reminders can be posted and those can be ignored also. For that to be accomplished, one could speculate as to the role of the deputy since they could act if they wanted to even if Mr. Hsiung wants to ignore my requests in the notifications because the notifications go to all the deputies and the reply is said by Mr. Hsiung to come from all of "us", where the members of the "us" are the deputies and Mr. Hsiung.
As to Dinah's own posts directed at my character, a question is if those posts could be considered to be anti-Semitic and then foster anti-Semitism because they do not have the tag-line from Mr. Hsiung to be civil so that readers could think that what is directed at my character constitutes anti-Semitism being fostered since they could think that it is it against the rules.
Since I am trying to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing antisemitic statements to remain to be seen as supportive by having him post some type of repudiation to them in the thread that they are initially posted, any attack upon my character here could be construed as an attempt to defame me in order to decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and to foster hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me, which could allow the anitismitism to flourish here by attempting to lead readers to believe falsely that I am a disturbed person and disregard what I am saying and lead a subset of reads to think that Jews can be degraded here and belittled and dehumanized.
I wll not allow it by objecting t it. There are a subset of jurists that think that if the moderator or the deputies do not show objection, that they can be considered to be validating the liable against me. That is what the U.S. Supreme court will here next term and I am confident that they will undoubtably render a decision that will convict all internet site owners and their deputies. If you want to be considered in my friend of the court brief that I am preparing, please contact me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 15:19:53
In reply to Lou's response to 10's post-whatfosters?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 10:12:31
> > >>>...the many posts I have made over the years that have fostered antisemetism
> >
> > Dinah, I trust you know what you are doing and why, but I hate that you chose to write this lie about yourself. I just cannot and will not let this statement exist here unrefuted. It's immoral for me to do so, maybe even unforgivable, by *my* standards in claiming to have any sort of positive relationship with you as a former deputy, fellow poster, battler of MH issues and friend.
> >
> > You have never, would never, and will never post anything here at PB or anywhere else that fosters antisemitism. Lou can have his views and opinions as he has and will - that does NOT make them correct, factual, or substantiated. They are OPINIONS. Those are supposed to be grounded in *something* to be worthy...others reading here can judge for themselves if they can locate the substance behind his many anxiety-accusations against former and current deputies and Dr. Bob. Ever try to capture the wind?
> >
> > Obviously, some subsets of someone can say that then my assertion what you wrote is false is also my "opinion," and so no more valid or accurate that Lou's. True, on its face. I will stand confidently on common sense and both our reputations here, letting the community decide if mine or Lou's view of your alleged antiemitism rings more true.
> >
> > The truth prevails and will - or maybe already has - set you free. I just want it on the record - by me at least -that the statement I snipped out above has no relationship to truth in this universe or any other.
> >
> > ((Dinah)) Sorry circumstances and changes to the nature of your home here changed so drastically it has come to this. Sorry for you, myself and all former deputies, and strangely even for Dr. Bob, too.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...You (Dinah) have never..post anything here...that fosters anti-Semitism...].
> The position of deputy here by Dinah can have responsibilities in certain jurisdictions as this site can go all over the world. And different jurisdictions apply different standards to publishers of on-line hate and defamation.
> When Dinah wrote that she has made many posts here over the years that have fostered anti-Semitism, we can understand what the word {foster} entails.
> To foster something is to encourage something or promote or develop something or advance something or cultivate something. The "something" here is anti-Semitism.
> And how is anti-Semitism fostered? I have stated here that I will not allow it here. To allow it to be fostered could mean that I would not object to it, but I do object to it. I know, and a subset of readers could also know, that the rules here state that statements that could lead another to feel that their faith is being put down, are not in accordance with the rules here and are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. And if they are allowed to be seen as that they are not sanctioned by a link to the statement where it is posted to be civil, readers could think that it is not against the rules here.
> There are jurisdictions where if a repudiation to an insult to a religion is not posted by a web site blogger, like this site, then that jurisdiction considers that the people that had the function to post the repudiation and did not do so, are considered to be ratifying the insult to that faith and held responsible just as they posted it themselves. So in that type of situation, let's say if a deputy allowed and insult to a faith to stand, it is if they are validating the insult as posting it themselves. In some jurisdictions, the blogger could be sentenced to death.
> In one case, a person committed suicide and there was a post encouraging them to do so and the web site moderator did not intervene with a repudiation. The blogger was held liable for the death because the blogger did not post a repudiation and readers could then think that the blogger was validating whatever caused the person to commit suicide as if the blogger posted whatever it was themselves.
> In cases of defamation, the U.S. is split now on if Mr. Hsiung an his deputies are liable for 3erd party posts that defame if they do not post a repudiation. This will be heard in the next session of the U.S. Supreme court in a case parallel to what is going on here where the owner of the site encouraged and fostered defamation toward a person by allowing 3erd party posters to openly post defamatory comments about the person's character and thus encouraged the liable by inaction. The site owner was held liable in some jurisdictions and not in others on the basis of if the web site owner is immune or not from liability of what others post. But if the site owner fosters the defamation, they lose their immunity in some jurisdictions. This is going to be heard in the High Court and I am preparing a Amicus Curie brief to show how, if allowed, Jews could be the subject of hate and anti-Semitism could be fostered by a web site by the owner and his deputies leaving my notifications outstanding and allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen as supportive without the owner posting his tag-line to be civil as he does for non-anti-Semitic statements in the thread to the statement where it was originally posted and how defamation is allowed to be posted against me by the owner saying that he gives himself the option of acting on my requests in the notifications or not when his policy is to act on them except for mine, where acting is to either post in the thread or contact the requester by email or such. Then reminders can be posted and those can be ignored also. For that to be accomplished, one could speculate as to the role of the deputy since they could act if they wanted to even if Mr. Hsiung wants to ignore my requests in the notifications because the notifications go to all the deputies and the reply is said by Mr. Hsiung to come from all of "us", where the members of the "us" are the deputies and Mr. Hsiung.
> As to Dinah's own posts directed at my character, a question is if those posts could be considered to be anti-Semitic and then foster anti-Semitism because they do not have the tag-line from Mr. Hsiung to be civil so that readers could think that what is directed at my character constitutes anti-Semitism being fostered since they could think that it is it against the rules.
> Since I am trying to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing antisemitic statements to remain to be seen as supportive by having him post some type of repudiation to them in the thread that they are initially posted, any attack upon my character here could be construed as an attempt to defame me in order to decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and to foster hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me, which could allow the anitismitism to flourish here by attempting to lead readers to believe falsely that I am a disturbed person and disregard what I am saying and lead a subset of reads to think that Jews can be degraded here and belittled and dehumanized.
> I wll not allow it by objecting t it. There are a subset of jurists that think that if the moderator or the deputies do not show objection, that they can be considered to be validating the liable against me. That is what the U.S. Supreme court will here next term and I am confident that they will undoubtably render a decision that will convict all internet site owners and their deputies. If you want to be considered in my friend of the court brief that I am preparing, please contact me.
> LouFriends,
It is written here, [...it's immoral...].
Another aspect of this site involves the intent of the deputies and Mr. Hsiung. They say that the site is for support and education and that being supportive takes precedence. Yet today, Mr. Hsiung openly states that posters can post defamation to put down another or accuse another here on the basis that he thinks it will be good for the community as a whole to do so because a benefit to the community will come from it. With that type of TOS here, he and his deputies can allow his rules to be broken by whoever he wishes to allow them to do so, even defame my character and post what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and put down Jews.
I will not allow that by objecting to it. For that type of thinking says that right or wrong is not the criteria to determine if something is not in accordance with his rules, but only what will be good for the community as a whole, which trumps his own rule to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence. That is not something new, but an old type of thinking that justified genocide and infanticide and slavery and segregation and discrimination, which are all abuses of power. That my notifications are treated differently in that Mr. Hsiung will respond to notifications but not to some of mine as his exception because he says that it will be good for him and the community to not respond to me and that by him not responding to me , that could encourage others also to not respond to me, could lead readers to think that by him doing that, it will be good for this community as a whole.
But him to be successful at that, the deputies would also not have to post their response, for they could if they wanted to. But there are years of outstanding notifications from me. And look a all the statements that are anti-Semitic that MR. Hsiung has posted recently some sort of repudiation that were in some cases old. All those years gone by having those seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. What kind of hate has spread from those posts to have Jews become victims of anti-Semitic violence? When will we know? When those that killed Jews have their computer searched and find that they came here and picked up on that the anti-Semitic statements unsanctioned will be good for this community as a whole? How many children have hatred toward Jews instilled into them by reading the hate posted here that is un repudiated and see that there were up to 6 deputies all silent, and see all my notifications outstanding with reminders, pleading to stop the fostering of hatred toward the Jews. And they could see that it will be good for this community as a whole according to the Mr. Hsiung.
I will not allow this and I am objecting to it. I do not think that anti-Semitism being allowed to be posted here without a sanction to the statement in the post that it was originally posted will be good for this community now, or for this community on the future. I do not think that defamation toward me being allowed to stand without a sanction posted to it in the thread where it was originally posted will be good for me or good for anyone, except those that want gratification by seeing me humiliated and ridiculed.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:02:49
In reply to Lou's response to 10's post-whatfosters?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 10:12:31
I blocked myself in the hope that you would consider me suitably punished and leave me alone. Instead you did the opposite. Had you left me alone, I'd have honored my block.
In case there is any doubt, I was not admitting to fostering anti-semetism. I was referring to your "anxieties" and your interpretations of my actions, posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have a long history of support of the Jewish faith and Jewish people. The idea of promoting anti-semetism is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill to see the accusations, or rather the "anxieties" about me posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
In my mind, accusing someone of something so heinous as fostering anti semetism is defamation of character. Of course, in Dr. Bob's mind, it isn't. And he runs Babble.
I have admitted to having been uncivil to you, even though my intent was to argue with Dr. Bob, not to try to hurt you. I regret any hurt I might have caused you.
That's *all* I regret and all I admit to.
Clearly my attempt to appease you failed. You will continue to post your "anxieties" towards me over and over and over and over and over again. And now you will even, again, post (gee, I wonder what the euphemism is in this case) your threats of legal action, no doubt over and over and over and over and over and over again.
And there is nothing on earth I can do to stop it. I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:12:53
In reply to Re: Lou, an experiment, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 2:41:02
Please feel free to block me. It would do me some good.
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:25:14
In reply to Re: Lou, an experiment, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2014, at 2:41:02
Dinah experiences pain at Babble.
Dinah does not like pain.
Dinah does not wish to be at Babble.Aversive training works quite well with me.
So do block me, Dr. Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
In reply to To clarify » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:02:49
> I blocked myself in the hope that you would consider me suitably punished and leave me alone. Instead you did the opposite. Had you left me alone, I'd have honored my block.
>
> In case there is any doubt, I was not admitting to fostering anti-semetism. I was referring to your "anxieties" and your interpretations of my actions, posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have a long history of support of the Jewish faith and Jewish people. The idea of promoting anti-semetism is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill to see the accusations, or rather the "anxieties" about me posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> In my mind, accusing someone of something so heinous as fostering anti semetism is defamation of character. Of course, in Dr. Bob's mind, it isn't. And he runs Babble.
>
> I have admitted to having been uncivil to you, even though my intent was to argue with Dr. Bob, not to try to hurt you. I regret any hurt I might have caused you.
>
> That's *all* I regret and all I admit to.
>
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed. You will continue to post your "anxieties" towards me over and over and over and over and over again. And now you will even, again, post (gee, I wonder what the euphemism is in this case) your threats of legal action, no doubt over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> And there is nothing on earth I can do to stop it. I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.D,
By you blocking yourself, that does not annul the fact that what you wrote about my character that is in question is standing un repudiated with not a link to it from Mr. Hsiung stating that what you wrote about me is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and not in accordance with a rule of his. By him leaving the statement un repudiated, a subset of readers could think that what you wrote about me will be good for this community as a whole. His rationale for leaving it un repudiated is that it has been archived. He admits that there could have been a notification from me before it was archived, but he has stated that he will honor notifications with the exception of some of mine. I contend that for anyone to make a determination as to if they will or will not honor a notification here, that reading it could be paramount in making that decision.
But be it as it may be, I am not looking for him to block you, but to post a repudiation to your statement about my character as per sanctions like others. I object to having different terms and conditions imposed on me here or anyplace else, and I will not allow defamation to stand against me by objecting to it here. My objection is not that you were not sanctioned by him posting to the statement in question, but to the statement being allowed to be seen as supportive in the thread where it is posted by e nature that he has not posted a link to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted. I do not think that it will be good for this community as a whole for that statement against my character to be seen like that here. As far as legal action, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on this next term in a parallel case where the owner of a site allowed others to defame a person and orchestrated the defamation which is different from being a neutral party. Here, Mr. Hsiung states that he can ignore his own rules and allow what could put down or accuse someone if it will be good for this community as a whole as the site could be improved. I will not allow that by objecting to it. And I am preparing my brief to sshow the court to understand that allowing the owner to allow others to post defamation and anti-Semitism without posting a sanction to the post where it was originally posted could lead to tragic consequences and I expect to be heard loud and clear by showing those judges the posts that put down Jews and defame me that Mr. Hsiung has not posted a repudiation to where the post was posted originally. He says that he can allow what could lead someone to feel put down or accused if by allowing it, improvement to the community will happen, so readers could think that is what is happening because it will be good for this community as a whole as to whatever he does and asks others to trust him at that. I do not see how that could be good for this community as a whole and wonder why anyone here would want those statements in question to go un repudiated.
As to what you can do, you could go to the posts in question that I want a repudiation posted to and post as to if you do or do not consider the statement to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to have it remain un repudiated without a statement from M Hsiung posted to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted. You could start with, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}and then I will give another one.
Mr. Hsiung says at he has "indirectly" sanctioned the statement. I d not honor "indirect" sanctions because as in this case, his sanction of the vulgar word does not tell readers that the anti-Semitic statement is sanctioned, for that can not be see. I know of readers that say that there is no such thing as an "indirect" sanction, for a sanction says that something is wrong and there could be consequences to the poster if it is done again. What I would like for you to do is post somethimg to that statement where I was originally posted like:
Readers, be advised that when I was a deputy of record of this post, I did not sanction it because__________________________________
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 17:33:23
In reply to Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 18:52:07
In reply to Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
Lou please do not harrass Dinah. I feel you have lost touch with reality? Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on July 2, 2014, at 19:25:20
In reply to Re: Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 18:52:07
You are a wise and perceptive woman.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 19:45:43
In reply to Thank you, sir. May I have another? (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 17:33:23
D,
In regards to your request for another one to post as to why you did not sanction the post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 20:30:58
In reply to Lou's accomodation-dephmgu » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 19:45:43
Lou not a Deputy anymore and look toward the future not the past as the pasts is gone over never to be done over. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 20:51:25
In reply to Re: Lou's accomodation-dephmgu » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 20:30:58
> Lou not a Deputy anymore and look toward the future not the past as the pasts is gone over never to be done over. Phillipa
I am giving Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record the opportunity to remediate statements that put down Jews and others, and statements that defame me. As long as they remain to be seen un repudiated, readers could think that the community could benefit from the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to be seen as civil by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
As that Dinah is not a deputy any more, that I consider a moot point because at her watch, she could have sanctioned them if she wanted to as the rules gave her. This is an opportunity for all of those deputies to post here why they did not use their power to sanction the anti-Semitic statements. If that was known, it could go a long way for them to let readers know how they justify that, if they do want to justify that, up to 6 deputies did not respond to my notifications that are to this day years outstanding. If those notifications were responded to, I think that lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided, and healing could be fostered here. I do not claim to be a faith healer, but it has been revealed to me how one could overcome all things, including addiction and depression and even death. Yet today, I am prevented by the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung to lead those that want a way out to a new life, free from depression and addiction. As far as the past, if there were no archives, that would be true in a sense. But as long as the archives exist, readers can see the un repudiated anti-Semitism and hatred posted against me, that has been revealed to me to be a detriment to those that want to be healed.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 22:17:31
In reply to Lou's reply-rkives » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 20:51:25
Well Lou since so much time has gone by. I think if there was any harm done it is long ago done and over with. How bout a truce with babble? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:49:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rkives » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 22:17:31
> I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it.
Who says you have to bend over? Stand tall and go about your business (and take it).
> Dinah experiences pain at Babble.
> Dinah does not like pain.
> Dinah does not wish to be at Babble.Being at Babble does not kill Dinah.
Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.--
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed.
>
> Dinah> How bout a truce with babble?
>
> PhillipaAppease implies demands. A truce implies a war. Both are so adversarial.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 7:06:28
In reply to To clarify » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:02:49
> I blocked myself in the hope that you would consider me suitably punished and leave me alone. Instead you did the opposite. Had you left me alone, I'd have honored my block.
>
> In case there is any doubt, I was not admitting to fostering anti-semetism. I was referring to your "anxieties" and your interpretations of my actions, posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have a long history of support of the Jewish faith and Jewish people. The idea of promoting anti-semetism is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill to see the accusations, or rather the "anxieties" about me posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> In my mind, accusing someone of something so heinous as fostering anti semetism is defamation of character. Of course, in Dr. Bob's mind, it isn't. And he runs Babble.
>
> I have admitted to having been uncivil to you, even though my intent was to argue with Dr. Bob, not to try to hurt you. I regret any hurt I might have caused you.
>
> That's *all* I regret and all I admit to.
>
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed. You will continue to post your "anxieties" towards me over and over and over and over and over again. And now you will even, again, post (gee, I wonder what the euphemism is in this case) your threats of legal action, no doubt over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> And there is nothing on earth I can do to stop it. I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.D,
You wrote,[...accusing someone of fostering anti-Semitism is defamation of character...].
I am unsure as to what you want readers to believe by you posting that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly.
A. Do you have a post, if any, that constitutes accusing you of fostering anti-Semitism that you can post a link to here?
B. Do you know, how does whatever is in that post, if there is one, accuse you of fostering anti-Semitism?
C. Do you think that if you could have posted a sanction if you wanted to when you were a deputy to statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being put down, or that a Jew that reads the statement could feel that their faith is being put down, would you consider that because you did not post a sanction and that the anti-Semitic statement(s) were then allowed to be seen as supportive and that they will be good for this community as a whole because unsanctioned statements mean that a rule has not been broken, that anti-Semitism could be fostered here because you did not post a sanction those type of statements that put down Jews?
D. Do you think that the community is improved when anti-Semitic statements are left to be seen as civil here because there is not a link from you or another deputy or Mr. Hsiung to the statement where it I posted originally as to that it is not in accordance with a rule here and is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community?
Lou
Posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 9:15:38
In reply to Lou's request-duyu » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 7:06:28
I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
In reply to Re: I just have to take it, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:49:31
> Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up? Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?
You seem to be able to remember for some people that this is a mental health community. But to find it difficult to remember for others.
Please be more sensitive to the fact that for some people your current way of running Babble can be harmful, and not make them stronger at all.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:38:55
In reply to Re: I just have to take it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
When I said "community", I didn't really mean community at all. I meant Bob and his policies. Nearly all of the posters at Babble are wonderful and continue to be wonderful.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:48:54
In reply to Re: I just have to take it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
> > Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
>
> That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up? Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
>
> It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?
>
> You seem to be able to remember for some people that this is a mental health community. But to find it difficult to remember for others.
>
> Please be more sensitive to the fact that for some people your current way of running Babble can be harmful, and not make them stronger at all.D,
You wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
True or False:
A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
F. more of your choice
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request-duyu » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 9:15:38
> I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 12:05:45
In reply to Lou's reply-opper » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
> LouPerhaps what it is saying is that I have no particular reason to believe in your good faith in requesting the information. After all, it seemed doubtful that you have forgotten so many of your posts made within the last month, when you seem to remember posts made years and years ago.
And whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott.
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.