![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 13:49:08
DR. Hsiung,
The correction to the URL about [...top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion - [...to foster an agenda not centered on Christ...]is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:26:01
In reply to correction to URL about foundation of faith-Lou, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 13:49:08
> The correction to the URL...
That was a while ago, and I'd like to try to keep moving forward, so I'm going to let it stand.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2004, at 11:40:33
In reply to Re: correction to URL, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:26:01
Dr. Hsiung,
Your reply to my request to make a determination as to the acceptability of the post in this thread that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and to put down those of other faiths was ,[...that was a while ago...so I am going to let it stand...].
Do you mean that the statement in question does have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and put down those of other faiths {but you are going to allow it anyway on some (statute of limitations}argument?}
If so, I feel that the post could be deleted and still allow {to go on}.
I am requesting that the post in question be deleted from the archives.
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on October 12, 2004, at 17:09:43
In reply to Lou's response to Dr.Hsiung's reply to Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2004, at 11:40:33
I think that Dr. Bob is saying (by saying 'let it stand') that he agrees with you and if he'd seen it sooner he would have stepped in.
Besides, it is archived now and to say anything would bring it back up.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2004, at 21:24:48
In reply to Re: letting it stand » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on October 12, 2004, at 17:09:43
> I think that Dr. Bob is saying (by saying 'let it stand') that he agrees with you and if he'd seen it sooner he would have stepped in.
>
> Besides, it is archived now and to say anything would bring it back up.Auntie Mel,
Could you clarify how deleting the post could [...bring it back up...]? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2004, at 21:40:49
In reply to Re: letting it stand » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on October 12, 2004, at 17:09:43
Auntie Mel,
You wrote that [...you think that Dr. Hsiung agrees with me and that if he had seen it sooner he would have...].
I am a liitle confused after reading this. Could you clarify if any of the following is accurate?
A. There is no dispute that the post in question has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and has the potential for people to think that religions founded on any agenda that is not centered on Christ are in a catagory of , in some way, "worst"?
B. Dr. Hsiung never saw the post before?
C. deleting the post will cause it to be brought up?
D. It would be good for the community as a whole to leave the post in question in the archives?
E. Faiths that are not founded on Jesus Christ can have posts here that put those faiths down?
F. none of the above.
G. A combination of the above.
H. something else.
If you could clarify this for me, then I could have the opportunirty to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on October 13, 2004, at 16:25:04
In reply to Lou's response to Auntie Mel-2 » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2004, at 21:40:49
I always hate it when you give me a-b-c choices. It seems to stifle my thought process (my problem, not yours)
So, the closest answer I could give would be D, and from what Dr. Bob said, probaby B
Deleting the post wouldn't bring it back up, but as near as I can tell Dr. Bob only deletes posts when they are written by a blocked person sneaking in with another name.
So, that leaves responding to it. Which would show up on the current page and everyone that saw it would look to see what it's about. I think it's better to just ignore it. For your good as much as / or more than the community.
You do know you aren't the only person that has the same feelings you do about "my god is better than your god" type language, don't you?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 13, 2004, at 16:52:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Auntie Mel-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on October 13, 2004, at 16:25:04
Auntie Mel,
You wrote,[...you do know you arn't the only person....?].
I do know that. That is why I feel that the post could be deleted as to be good for the community as a whole.
As far as there being any posts that have been deleted that were not from blocked posters, is there not a mention in the FAQ that some types of posts could be deleted?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2012, at 17:19:48
In reply to Re: correction to URL, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:26:01
> > The correction to the URL...
>
> That was a while ago, and I'd like to try to keep moving forward, so I'm going to let it stand.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to post a response to whatever you post to me here.
A. Is what you posted and {excuse} for allowing what could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings here?
B. Is what you posted a {rationale} for allowing what could make the potential for me as a Jew IMHO to be a victim of antisemitic violence?
C. Is what you posted something other than an excuse or a rationale? If so, what is it called, if it has a name?
D. If it was not awhile ago, would you not let it stand? If so, what is awhile ago in time?
E. Would you be willing to post in the thread where the statement appears and post that you have some reason to allow it to stand and expound upon that reason as to if it is an excuse to allow it or a rationale to allow it or something else which could bring out if you are wanting to declare the statement in question supportive or not?
F. If you are not willing to accomodate my request, could you post here what your rationale could be for being unwilling, if that is the correct description of why you are allowing the statement to stand?
G. If it is that you {can't} accomodate my request, could you post as to what is stopping you from posting in that thread which could identify what {can't) could mean to you?
H. Are you aware that a Jew could be targeted for murder by the nature that people here take mind-altering drugs that have the potential to induce a mind-altered state for the taker of the drug to be compelled to want to kill themselves and/or others, even commit mass murder? I state this because of my concern that you are allowing a statement to stand that could give some feelings (false) of supremacy by the nature of the statement in question having the potential INHO of defaming Jews and others that do not have their religion (redacted by respondent) Christ. Then there is the potential IMHO for some to think that what is in question is supportive and that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. Some that revear you, if there are those here, could think that they are following your thinking about Jews here, could they not?
K. Could not some here think that by you allowing the statement to stand, be it for any reason, that Jews and others that do not accept the claim are being disrespected?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 12, 2013, at 13:14:04
In reply to Lou's request-urlyehbul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2012, at 17:19:48
> > > The correction to the URL...
> >
> > That was a while ago, and I'd like to try to keep moving forward, so I'm going to let it stand.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to post a response to whatever you post to me here.
> A. Is what you posted and {excuse} for allowing what could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings here?
> B. Is what you posted a {rationale} for allowing what could make the potential for me as a Jew IMHO to be a victim of antisemitic violence?
> C. Is what you posted something other than an excuse or a rationale? If so, what is it called, if it has a name?
> D. If it was not awhile ago, would you not let it stand? If so, what is awhile ago in time?
> E. Would you be willing to post in the thread where the statement appears and post that you have some reason to allow it to stand and expound upon that reason as to if it is an excuse to allow it or a rationale to allow it or something else which could bring out if you are wanting to declare the statement in question supportive or not?
> F. If you are not willing to accomodate my request, could you post here what your rationale could be for being unwilling, if that is the correct description of why you are allowing the statement to stand?
> G. If it is that you {can't} accomodate my request, could you post as to what is stopping you from posting in that thread which could identify what {can't) could mean to you?
> H. Are you aware that a Jew could be targeted for murder by the nature that people here take mind-altering drugs that have the potential to induce a mind-altered state for the taker of the drug to be compelled to want to kill themselves and/or others, even commit mass murder? I state this because of my concern that you are allowing a statement to stand that could give some feelings (false) of supremacy by the nature of the statement in question having the potential INHO of defaming Jews and others that do not have their religion (redacted by respondent) Christ. Then there is the potential IMHO for some to think that what is in question is supportive and that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. Some that revear you, if there are those here, could think that they are following your thinking about Jews here, could they not?
> K. Could not some here think that by you allowing the statement to stand, be it for any reason, that Jews and others that do not accept the claim are being disrespected?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder policy, the above has outstanding requests from me to you.
These requests, if they had answers from you posted here, IMHHO could save lives and prevent Jews and others from becoming victims of antissemitic violence and antiother violence.
Lou Pilder
PS ...here is a link to the post that you are allowing to stand ,which IMO some people could think that in the second list of the {worst}, number 5, could be thought by some to be supportive by you, for you state that support takes precedence. And they could think that Jews then become {fair game}here to defamation and hate posted toward them here. And Islamic people and the others described in #5 in the second list could consider that to be an insult to their God that they give service and worship to. And if you post answers to my requests, then I could post to you my response to whatever you post to me. Your terms of service here states that you want to be fair, and that you are open to feedback and that members are not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down/accused. I took you at your word.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on June 5, 2013, at 6:43:28
In reply to Lou's request-hzwud » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on February 12, 2013, at 13:14:04
> > > > The correction to the URL...
> > >
> > > That was a while ago, and I'd like to try to keep moving forward, so I'm going to let it stand.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to post a response to whatever you post to me here.
> > A. Is what you posted and {excuse} for allowing what could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings here?
> > B. Is what you posted a {rationale} for allowing what could make the potential for me as a Jew IMHO to be a victim of antisemitic violence?
> > C. Is what you posted something other than an excuse or a rationale? If so, what is it called, if it has a name?
> > D. If it was not awhile ago, would you not let it stand? If so, what is awhile ago in time?
> > E. Would you be willing to post in the thread where the statement appears and post that you have some reason to allow it to stand and expound upon that reason as to if it is an excuse to allow it or a rationale to allow it or something else which could bring out if you are wanting to declare the statement in question supportive or not?
> > F. If you are not willing to accomodate my request, could you post here what your rationale could be for being unwilling, if that is the correct description of why you are allowing the statement to stand?
> > G. If it is that you {can't} accomodate my request, could you post as to what is stopping you from posting in that thread which could identify what {can't) could mean to you?
> > H. Are you aware that a Jew could be targeted for murder by the nature that people here take mind-altering drugs that have the potential to induce a mind-altered state for the taker of the drug to be compelled to want to kill themselves and/or others, even commit mass murder? I state this because of my concern that you are allowing a statement to stand that could give some feelings (false) of supremacy by the nature of the statement in question having the potential INHO of defaming Jews and others that do not have their religion (redacted by respondent) Christ. Then there is the potential IMHO for some to think that what is in question is supportive and that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. Some that revear you, if there are those here, could think that they are following your thinking about Jews here, could they not?
> > K. Could not some here think that by you allowing the statement to stand, be it for any reason, that Jews and others that do not accept the claim are being disrespected?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder policy, the above has outstanding requests from me to you.
> These requests, if they had answers from you posted here, IMHHO could save lives and prevent Jews and others from becoming victims of antissemitic violence and antiother violence.
> Lou Pilder
> PS ...here is a link to the post that you are allowing to stand ,which IMO some people could think that in the second list of the {worst}, number 5, could be thought by some to be supportive by you, for you state that support takes precedence. And they could think that Jews then become {fair game}here to defamation and hate posted toward them here. And Islamic people and the others described in #5 in the second list could consider that to be an insult to their God that they give service and worship to. And if you post answers to my requests, then I could post to you my response to whatever you post to me. Your terms of service here states that you want to be fair, and that you are open to feedback and that members are not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down/accused. I took you at your word.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder provision, I think that it would be good for this community as a whole for answers to my requests to you here were posted here. I base this that I see hate being allowed to be posted here and allowed to stand by you and your deputy and previous deputies.
It is my learned position that people that have depression and/or addiction can not overcome those if they harbor hatred. So it is my position that for me to save lives here and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions, that hate not be allowed to be thought to be supportive by you here by the nature that you state that support takes precedence and one match could start a forest fire. If members see that hate is not sanctioned by you, they could think that hate is supportive. Now if my requests here to you were answered here, then I could expose what I need to have readers see so that they could IMHO overcome depression and/or addiction. And the statement in question if not addressed by the questions that I have for you here, could allow readers to have hatred,in particular but not limited to, toward the Jews, and then the potential for anti-Semitic violence perpetrated to Jews could come from this site, for as long as it could be seen that the statement could be thought to be supportive, hatred toward the Jews could flourish from people reading this site.
You say in your TOS that people are to try to trust you in what you do and that what you do in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. How could hate having the potential as being allowed to be thought to be supportive be good for people trying to overcome depression and/or addiction? Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question stating that what is in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, and post there in that thread your rationale for it to be allowed to stand, then I could post my response to you there.
Lou Pilder
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.