![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 21, 2008, at 13:34:44
In reply to Lou's request for identification/rationale » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 4:52:55
Sorry if the format of my post was confusing, Lou.
This:
> What we saw was vile hate speech
is the portion I was indicating was uncivil. Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is generally considered uncivil.
Hope that clarifies things.
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
In reply to Re: Lou's request for identification/rationale » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 21, 2008, at 13:34:44
> Sorry if the format of my post was confusing, Lou.
>
> This:
>
> > What we saw was vile hate speech
>
> is the portion I was indicating was uncivil. Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is generally considered uncivil.
>
> Hope that clarifies things.
>
> -- 10derHeartDeputy 10derHeart,
You wrote,[...Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is...uncivil...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by {negative characterization} of what a poster posts here in relation to what BayLeaf posted as you cited.
The generally accepted meanings of {negative} and {characerization} are unknown to me as to how by stateing what one sees could fall into the catagory of being a {negative characterization} based upon my understanding of the grammatical structure of your statement.
If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
I am unsure as to what if Bayleaf prefaced the statement with {I believe} as to if then that would have been left without administrative sanction or not. If you could write here as to if that would be acceptable or not, then I could respond accordingly.
I am also unsure as to if BayLeaf posted the statement you cited in an article in a link, let's say from a group that Bayleaf belongs to, that wrote that the type of words used that Bayleaf identified are of the nature that Bayleaf identified as in what your sanction to Bayleaf includes, would then be also notated as being uncivil or not, or would you ask Bayleaf to revise the link which could mean that Bayleaf could repost something else in its place, while the link remained intact, and not be sanctioned as being asked to be civil. If you could write here as to if that could be acceptable or not, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
You were the first person to offer me a kind word when I first came here to Babble--I haven't forgotten that gesture. You have been scrutinized and blocked more and longer than anyone I've seen here. It must be near unbearable to live under such a microscope --walking on eggshells. I'm sorry for the way things have evolved here for you Lou. I have not consciously tried to encourage the current state of affairs here. In fact, I try to stay as nuetral as possible on Admin. I sure do wish you could speak your mind here. I've never been offended by anything you've said---but the world suffers from a host of maladies and people are not as free to give their opinions here as once existed. Bob Dylan was right when he proclaimed that the times were changing. I reckon it's the natural progression when you have a bunch of folks who suffer from being human--it's an often untreatable condition. My hat's off to you Lou. You've endured a lot and have,so far, managed to maintain your composure. I suppose that I'm trying to say , "Hang in there" in my own round about way--and I have faith that you will. Later friend...
Posted by Dena on November 21, 2008, at 22:40:58
In reply to Lou, posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
You have a good and gracious heart, Bobby.
Thanks for speaking out for Lou this way -- yes, Lou has given a lot of people many gifts.
May he find a way to share his heart, so that others can be blessed.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Justherself54 on November 22, 2008, at 12:41:47
In reply to Lou, posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
That was a really nice post.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 22, 2008, at 22:52:49
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
>If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
1. It's uncivil at Psycho-Babble to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
2. Describing what I wrote in a post - *any* post - as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down. I don't believe "vile" is a positive, supportive adjective - see below.
Definitions of *vile* per M-W:
1 a: morally despicable or abhorrent
b: physically repulsive : foul
2: of little worth or account
3: tending to degrade
4: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious , contemptible
------------------------------
As for the rest, I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.Lou, I think it's probable I didn't answer your question(s), and possible you may have more questions. I'm sorry for my limitations, however, I don't know how to explain this admin action any further. Perhaps another poster, deputy or Dr. Bob can help.
Respectfully,
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 7:55:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 22, 2008, at 22:52:49
> >If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
>
> 1. It's uncivil at Psycho-Babble to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> 2. Describing what I wrote in a post - *any* post - as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down. I don't believe "vile" is a positive, supportive adjective - see below.
>
> Definitions of *vile* per M-W:
>
> 1 a: morally despicable or abhorrent
> b: physically repulsive : foul
> 2: of little worth or account
> 3: tending to degrade
> 4: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious , contemptible
> ------------------------------
> As for the rest, I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.
>
> Lou, I think it's probable I didn't answer your question(s), and possible you may have more questions. I'm sorry for my limitations, however, I don't know how to explain this admin action any further. Perhaps another poster, deputy or Dr. Bob can help.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -- 10derHeartFriends,
The response from the administration here to me is one that I would like for the community to see from my perspective concerning how a Jew could see what was written to him as a reply to his concerns.
The understanding that I have concerning the deputy's reply to me is that it is my understanding that her reply to me is a reply that could be from all the administration, being Mr. Hsiung and the other deputies as well. I base that on that I have requested from Mr. Hsiung concerning responses to me from his deputies and from him as to how the ones not listed stood in relation to the reply.
Here is a link to a post to a thread that gives some clarification to that.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/705186.html
I ask; Is a reply to be considerd a reply from all of the administration? If so, if Mr. Hsiung or another deputy does not consider that the reply to me here from the deputy does reflect their thinking, I invite them, if there are any, to post here their postion if different.
In another aspect of the importance to me of this reply to me here from the deputy, I would like for those that are considering posting to this thread to examine the post and thread that is brought up and take that into consideration in any post that you may want to post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Then there could be a question as to what is considered here to be an antisemitic post. Here is a link to a post and thread that I would like for you to examine if you are going to pst here to consider what is the definition of an anti-Semitic post.
http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
The deputy here writes to me,[...it's probable I didn't answer your question(s)..you may have more...I don't know how to explain this administrative action..another deputy, poster or (Mr. Hsiung) can...].
The invitation from the deputy also involves questions that the deputy thinks I could have, and I do. Before I post those here for members to consider posting their answers to if they would like, I am asking that others email me if they would like to have a better understanding of my perspective concerning this thread's aspects.
One question, though, is that I am asking you to examine the deputy's statement to me,[...describing what I wrote in a post-*any* post-as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down...]
Now after reading that, I have the following questions that the deputy invites others to explain the administrative action taken, and if you are one wanting to accept that invitation, then,
A. Does the grammatical structure of the statement in question indicate, in your opiniion, that the statement in question that was sanctioned in Bayleaf's post in question indicate that it is the word used as an adjective that makes the statement uncivil and that the statement in question could be civil if the adjective in question was not used?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by gardenergirl on November 25, 2008, at 11:19:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of the deputy's post-vl » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 7:55:30
> A. Does the grammatical structure of the statement in question indicate, in your opiniion, that the statement in question that was sanctioned in Bayleaf's post in question indicate that it is the word used as an adjective that makes the statement uncivil and that the statement in question could be civil if the adjective in question was not used?
Grammatical structure aside, Dr. Bob does not and has not typically made a practice of enumerating all aspects of a post or posts that he might consider to be uncivil when he asks a person to be civil. He may only quote one sentence or phrase even if there are others within the same post or in other posts within the same time period that he could use as the example. I've noticed the deputies tend to follow his lead on that. Thus, one cannot assume that simply removing the one word that Deputy 10derheart used in her clarification to you would mean the phrase meets the civility guidelines.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 20:24:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of the deputy's post-vl » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on November 25, 2008, at 11:19:32
> > A. Does the grammatical structure of the statement in question indicate, in your opiniion, that the statement in question that was sanctioned in Bayleaf's post in question indicate that it is the word used as an adjective that makes the statement uncivil and that the statement in question could be civil if the adjective in question was not used?
>
> Grammatical structure aside, Dr. Bob does not and has not typically made a practice of enumerating all aspects of a post or posts that he might consider to be uncivil when he asks a person to be civil. He may only quote one sentence or phrase even if there are others within the same post or in other posts within the same time period that he could use as the example. I've noticed the deputies tend to follow his lead on that. Thus, one cannot assume that simply removing the one word that Deputy 10derheart used in her clarification to you would mean the phrase meets the civility guidelines.
>
> ggFriends,
It is written here,[...Grammatical structure aside...].
The grammatical structure of what is posted is what can be seen. My post is about what can be seen, which is the grammatical structure of the statements.
Mr. Hsiung writes that not untiil he can see it can he know it. I agree in that respect with Mr. Hsiung and thearfore that is why I stated in my post concerning the grammatical structure as what could be seen. The gramatical structure is what we go by for what can not be seen IMO is something else. If we put the grammatical structure aside, then could we put BayLeaf's adjective, which is part of a grammatical structure, aside? Mr Hsiung has posted,[...Please don't post links to ant-Semitic sites, period...] (Robert Hsiung May 23, 2002). Now the generally accepted meaning of {period} in that context is that there are no exceptions and that the grammatical structure is not being put aside. I took Mr. Hsiung at his word.
Lou
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 25, 2008, at 21:40:51
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of post-ahthzwrd » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 20:24:08
Thanks gg, and I agree with what you wrote.
In this instance, I would have also considered it to be uncivil without the adjective *vile."
IMO, posting
"What we saw was hate speech"
could lead the author of the post to feel accused.
I speak for myself, and not for the other deputies, or Dr. Bob.
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2008, at 16:28:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 22, 2008, at 22:52:49
> >If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
>
> 1. It's uncivil at Psycho-Babble to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> 2. Describing what I wrote in a post - *any* post - as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down. I don't believe "vile" is a positive, supportive adjective - see below.
>
> Definitions of *vile* per M-W:
>
> 1 a: morally despicable or abhorrent
> b: physically repulsive : foul
> 2: of little worth or account
> 3: tending to degrade
> 4: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious , contemptible
> ------------------------------
> As for the rest, I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.
>
> Lou, I think it's probable I didn't answer your question(s), and possible you may have more questions. I'm sorry for my limitations, however, I don't know how to explain this admin action any further. Perhaps another poster, deputy or Dr. Bob can help.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -- 10derHeart10derHeart,
You wrote,[...I didn't answer your questions...]
The question that I can not find an answer to is my question as to who are the {others} that you write here that could feel put down by reading Bayleaf's statement identifying what she sees that you sanctioned her for.
When I read your statement here that {others} could feel put down by reading Bayleaf's statement of identification as to what she sees in the poster's statement about Jews, and then try to understand your statement that {others} could feel put down by what BayLeaf posted as to her identification of the speech in question, I ask myself who the {others} could be. And then I ask myself if what Bayleaf wrote and was sanctioned for could be seen by others as something as uncivil as what the poster of the statement that Bayleaf identified was sanctioned for.
Then in what you wrote in that it is uncivil to post anything that could lead one here to feel accused or put down, I would like for those that are considering posting in this thread or parallel threads to read the aspects in the threads that the links here below bring up and consider the issues presented in any reply here. If you could, then I think that you could have a better ubnderstanding of the issues involved here, including but not limited to what could lead a Jew to feel put down.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/776479.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2008, at 21:56:14
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy-eighvhy? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2008, at 16:28:05
The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2008, at 8:53:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy-eighvhy? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 5, 2008, at 21:56:14
> The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
Dinah,
You wrote,[...the "others" is the original poster...]
I am unsure then as to what your rationale could be to think that the original poster whose post was being identified by Bayleaf in relation to Jews was of the nature as to cause the original poster to feel put down.
This is because there are generally accepted meanings of what constitutes a statement that could lead someone to feel put down. And could it not be that the original poster wound need to be contacted to ask particular questions as to how the statement was perceived by him to make a determinationn as to if the statement by Bayleaf does or does not lead him to feel put down? If you could identify the rationale of what constitutes someone to feel put down that you used here to state that the original poster could feel put down by what Bayleaf posted, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2008, at 16:27:37
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-phtduck » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2008, at 8:53:45
> > The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...the "others" is the original poster...]
> I am unsure then as to what your rationale could be to think that the original poster whose post was being identified by Bayleaf in relation to Jews was of the nature as to cause the original poster to feel put down.
> This is because there are generally accepted meanings of what constitutes a statement that could lead someone to feel put down. And could it not be that the original poster wound need to be contacted to ask particular questions as to how the statement was perceived by him to make a determinationn as to if the statement by Bayleaf does or does not lead him to feel put down? If you could identify the rationale of what constitutes someone to feel put down that you used here to state that the original poster could feel put down by what Bayleaf posted, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> LouMr. Hsiung and his deputies,
I am requesting that the sanction to Bayleaf for what IMO that there is the potential for a Jew to consider to be a statement by her to be standing up for Jews here. I am requesting that the sanction to her to please be civil be redacted until a member of the administration posts here their criteria used to write here that Bayleaf's post could lead the original poster to feel put down.
I am also requesting that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here to respond to the administration sanctioning IMO a statement that comes to the aid of Jews here and writing that Bayleaf's statement could lead the original poster to feel put down until the administration posts their criteria used to support such. And if they do post a criteria, then my posts could be redacted and then I could have the opportunity to then respond to the criteria that they post if they do post such. I think that the exception to allow me to post more than 3 consecutive post here could be good for the communty as a whole.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dena on December 22, 2008, at 1:26:16
In reply to Lou's request for a redaction and exception-gudfr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2008, at 16:27:37
This strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
Rules for the sake of rules are backfiring, and creating a contentious environment, where no one seems to notice that someone is indeed being, as well as feeling, "put down": Lou.
Rules have been created just to censor him, just to limit him. How does anyone imagine they'd feel in his shoes? "Put down" certainly comes to mind.
This reminds me of "Animal Planet"... where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others...! Beyond absurd.
This situation has put Lou into a state of perpetually reminding those who make the rules, to abide by their very own rules ... sort of a posters' purgatory.
Is this some sort of bizzare experiment, designed to provoke others into insanity?
Where's common sense and human dignity...?
Where's mere *kindness*..?
Shalom (something I wish for all here),
Dena
Posted by Deputy Dinah on December 22, 2008, at 14:57:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request for a redaction and exception-gudfr, posted by Dena on December 22, 2008, at 1:26:16
> Rules have been created just to censor him, just to limit him.
> Is this some sort of bizzare experiment, designed to provoke others into insanity?
Please don't jump to conclusions or post anything that could lead others, including Dr. Bob and the deputies, to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dena on December 22, 2008, at 21:51:18
In reply to Please be civil » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 22, 2008, at 14:57:13
> > Rules have been created just to censor him, just to limit him.
>
> > Is this some sort of bizzare experiment, designed to provoke others into insanity?
>
> Please don't jump to conclusions or post anything that could lead others, including Dr. Bob and the deputies, to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
So - the one who points out the problem *becomes* the problem...?Reprimanding, censoring, or even banishing me, would not solve the problem, when the probelm is inherent with the system.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2008, at 9:38:06
In reply to Lou's request for a redaction and exception-gudfr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2008, at 16:27:37
> > > The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
> >
> > Dinah,
> > You wrote,[...the "others" is the original poster...]
> > I am unsure then as to what your rationale could be to think that the original poster whose post was being identified by Bayleaf in relation to Jews was of the nature as to cause the original poster to feel put down.
> > This is because there are generally accepted meanings of what constitutes a statement that could lead someone to feel put down. And could it not be that the original poster wound need to be contacted to ask particular questions as to how the statement was perceived by him to make a determinationn as to if the statement by Bayleaf does or does not lead him to feel put down? If you could identify the rationale of what constitutes someone to feel put down that you used here to state that the original poster could feel put down by what Bayleaf posted, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou
>
> Mr. Hsiung and his deputies,
> I am requesting that the sanction to Bayleaf for what IMO that there is the potential for a Jew to consider to be a statement by her to be standing up for Jews here. I am requesting that the sanction to her to please be civil be redacted until a member of the administration posts here their criteria used to write here that Bayleaf's post could lead the original poster to feel put down.
> I am also requesting that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here to respond to the administration sanctioning IMO a statement that comes to the aid of Jews here and writing that Bayleaf's statement could lead the original poster to feel put down until the administration posts their criteria used to support such. And if they do post a criteria, then my posts could be redacted and then I could have the opportunity to then respond to the criteria that they post if they do post such. I think that the exception to allow me to post more than 3 consecutive post here could be good for the communty as a whole.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung and his deputies and members,
Now the aspect of {jumping to a conclusion} is posted here. But what is {jumping} in relation to discussion?
One of the generally accepted meanings of {to jump to a conclusion} is that the statement could be seen as being made with inadaquate premises or limited evidence to substantiate what is written as to be fact or not fact. This then means that an investigation could be made to determine if or if not there is adaquate evidence to make a conclusion or not to make a conclusion.
Another way that grammatical statements could be deemed as being {jumping to a conclusion} is as to if there was a short time used to make the conclusion, sometimes referred to as a {hasty generalization}. But has there been a short time or a long period of ongoing aspects here posted related to the statement that the conclusion was {jumped to} or not? That could be investigated also to make that determination, for the archives could shed light on that.
Then there becomes the aspect that the statement in question referrs to {rules made} here. Those rules made here could be seen and then determined as to if they are made or not made in regards to the conclusion as being jumped to or not if there could be seen, or not seen, what is in question here.
Here is a link to a post that makes a rule (citation pstopem 13). I ask for interested members here that are considering to post in this thread to consider the following in your mind in making any post here because I think to consider the issues could enhance the outlook that one may have in composing their post:
A. Who is the rule made to?
B. What does the rule, in your opinion if you have one, intend to accomplish?
C. Is the rule in the FAQ?
D. Can you see another post here where another member posts a link of the nature in question without sanction?
Lou
(citation pstopem 13)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678294.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2008, at 15:20:53
In reply to Lou's request for a redaction and exception-mkjgr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2008, at 9:38:06
> > > > The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
> > >
> > > Dinah,
> > > You wrote,[...the "others" is the original poster...]
> > > I am unsure then as to what your rationale could be to think that the original poster whose post was being identified by Bayleaf in relation to Jews was of the nature as to cause the original poster to feel put down.
> > > This is because there are generally accepted meanings of what constitutes a statement that could lead someone to feel put down. And could it not be that the original poster wound need to be contacted to ask particular questions as to how the statement was perceived by him to make a determinationn as to if the statement by Bayleaf does or does not lead him to feel put down? If you could identify the rationale of what constitutes someone to feel put down that you used here to state that the original poster could feel put down by what Bayleaf posted, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung and his deputies,
> > I am requesting that the sanction to Bayleaf for what IMO that there is the potential for a Jew to consider to be a statement by her to be standing up for Jews here. I am requesting that the sanction to her to please be civil be redacted until a member of the administration posts here their criteria used to write here that Bayleaf's post could lead the original poster to feel put down.
> > I am also requesting that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here to respond to the administration sanctioning IMO a statement that comes to the aid of Jews here and writing that Bayleaf's statement could lead the original poster to feel put down until the administration posts their criteria used to support such. And if they do post a criteria, then my posts could be redacted and then I could have the opportunity to then respond to the criteria that they post if they do post such. I think that the exception to allow me to post more than 3 consecutive post here could be good for the communty as a whole.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung and his deputies and members,
> Now the aspect of {jumping to a conclusion} is posted here. But what is {jumping} in relation to discussion?
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {to jump to a conclusion} is that the statement could be seen as being made with inadaquate premises or limited evidence to substantiate what is written as to be fact or not fact. This then means that an investigation could be made to determine if or if not there is adaquate evidence to make a conclusion or not to make a conclusion.
> Another way that grammatical statements could be deemed as being {jumping to a conclusion} is as to if there was a short time used to make the conclusion, sometimes referred to as a {hasty generalization}. But has there been a short time or a long period of ongoing aspects here posted related to the statement that the conclusion was {jumped to} or not? That could be investigated also to make that determination, for the archives could shed light on that.
> Then there becomes the aspect that the statement in question referrs to {rules made} here. Those rules made here could be seen and then determined as to if they are made or not made in regards to the conclusion as being jumped to or not if there could be seen, or not seen, what is in question here.
> Here is a link to a post that makes a rule (citation pstopem 13). I ask for interested members here that are considering to post in this thread to consider the following in your mind in making any post here because I think to consider the issues could enhance the outlook that one may have in composing their post:
> A. Who is the rule made to?
> B. What does the rule, in your opinion if you have one, intend to accomplish?
> C. Is the rule in the FAQ?
> D. Can you see another post here where another member posts a link of the nature in question without sanction?
> Lou
> (citation pstopem 13)
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678294.htmlFriends,
It is now stated here that a member has jumped to a conclusion. I would like for you to make that determination on your own as to if the member that that is written to has or has not jumped to a conclusion.
You see, rules can be made toward a group of people or to one person of a group, but there are other ways to have rules made to one person or a group. One way is to make a rule and allow others than the one in question to be allowed to break the rule without sanction, or to make an exception for them by not applying the rule to them.
Here is a link to a post that brings up a thread. I have heard that kind of talk before but I never thought that I would hear it here. I ask those to consider what you read if you are going to post in this thread or parallel threads, for I think that if you do, you could have a better understanding of what it means here to jump or to not jump to a conclusion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Posted by Sigismund on December 25, 2008, at 17:42:55
In reply to Lou's request for a redaction and exception-ptdk, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2008, at 15:20:53
I'm not sure how you are meant to get to a conclusion, if you are not supposed to jump.
March toward it?
Sneak up on it?
Posted by Dena on December 25, 2008, at 19:56:11
In reply to Please be civil » Dena, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 22, 2008, at 14:57:13
> > Rules have been created just to censor him, just to limit him.
>
> > Is this some sort of bizzare experiment, designed to provoke others into insanity?
>
> Please don't jump to conclusions or post anything that could lead others, including Dr. Bob and the deputies, to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
What's the difference between jumping to a conslusion, and pointing out an observable problem? I have seen, firsthand (along with anyone else who's bothering to pay attention), how Lou is censored in ways that others are allowed to post. I have seen, firsthand, how his patient pleas for equity are ignored. This is no conclusion I've jumped to... and since every rational explanation for why this continues has been ruled out, I have no choice but to assume that something beyond-odd is going on here.Why is it that it seems whenever one of us points out a problem we get the "please be civil" diversion? Why is the real issue swept under the proverbial rug, while a petty side-issue is hyper-focused on? Clever tactic, if it weren't so poorly over-used. Obviously when someone here points out a problem, that someone *becomes* a problem. And the original, and real, problem, continues to fester.
Also -- when and how can one expect a notification to be responded to? Is it one of the rules that notificaions are to be ignored?
I can't keep up with the rules, nor the way in which they are applied to some, but not to others.
And, why is it that we're told to notify Dr. Bob via email, if he's no longer interested in overseeing this community? Honestly, what good would that do?
Why do we have it continuing in his name, and why do we buoy up his rules, if he doesn't participate here?
And why do I think none of my questions will be answered...?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Sigismund on December 26, 2008, at 15:55:04
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Dena on December 25, 2008, at 19:56:11
The first of your statements
>Rules have been created just to censor him, just to limit him
was right, wasn't it?Although, as has been said, perhaps there were reasons (multiple posts!) for this.
Speaking personally, I wish Lou would just post about his beliefs and revelation.
For me they have always been a highlight.Antisemitism is unwelcome here. The claims of Christianity can sometimes be antisemitic.
This is part of our history and I don't see what can be done about it.
Posted by Bobby on December 26, 2008, at 23:12:49
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Dena, posted by Sigismund on December 26, 2008, at 15:55:04
My father has been a Christian minister for over 40 years---and I can't comprehend how Christians can be antisemitic. I was always taught the opposite. For example, Genesis chapter 12 verse 3 says--concerning God's covenant with the Jewish people, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in the shall all families of the earth be blessed." Again in Isaiah chapter 60 verse 12 it says, "for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." According to the Bible, God has a unique covenant with the Jews. For a more in depth read on that covenant--I think that Romans chapters 9-11 covers the basics. Now--before anyone jumps to agree or disagree---I'm just quoting the Bible. some believe--some don't. I'm merely stating one view out of many. I have read some of Lou's posts on the Faith board and part of what he states can be found in the Bible. I can't judge people for what they beleive has been revealed to them by God. People throughout history have done or said some very controversial things--such as Abraham preparing to sacrifice his only son or Isaiah preaching naked--pretty radical by any standards. So I certainly can't judge what Lou believes.As far as his belief concerning antisemitism here--I honestly don't know --as I'm not good at discerning the thoughts of others. my wife says I'm clueless on picking up stuff like that. I would hope, with all of my heart and soul, that that is not the case--but the Jews are sensitive to antisemitism on a level that , I believe, cannot be duplicated by Gentiles. It is the duty of every man, woman, and child to be acutely aware of the atrocities commited against them --and to be ever vigilant in stopping unspeakable crimes --that start out as only thoughts. I am not a holier than thou radical conservative and I count my friends across a very broad area--as long as you're not causing harm to others--live your life as you darn well please --I don't have to answer for your deeds and thus have no right to live your life for you---I'm too busy with mine. This whole subject has totally and completely exhausted me. However, I'm sure we've all heard of people being assaulted and killed in front of bystanders who did nothing but watch--not wanting to get involved. This will be my last post concerning this area of discussion--as I am spent.This message is directed towards no person here--and is not intended to be malicious in any way. I'll leave with this(Ephesians 6:12), "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Posted by Dena on December 26, 2008, at 23:40:29
In reply to Antisemitism in Christianity, posted by Bobby on December 26, 2008, at 23:12:49
I *like* your good heart, Bobby -- I hear God in your words.
I'm a follower of Jesus (don't call myself a Christian anymore, for a variety of reasons, mainly because I believe it's a manmade religion, and I'm more interested in a relationship with God outside of the artificial restraints of religion).
My husband is Jewish, and also a follower of Jesus (I don't mean offense by using that name -- He goes by many names, Y'shua, Yeshua, Yashua, Isa, Messiah, Savior, Anointed One, etc.).
I do have to say this though, Bobby, and though it grieves me, I must say that Christianity has indeed been quite antiSemitic through the centuries. The atrocities done "in the name of Christ" are legion: killing of "heretics", slaughtering and raping of thousands in the Crusades (both Jews and Muslims), the Inquisition, buring of "witches" for centuries, persecution of the Jews, the Holocaust.
All one has to do is read some of Luther's or Calvin's writings, to see how antiSemitic they were.
It continues to this day, albeit perhaps more subtley, with "replacement theology".
Likely you haven't seen it because your heart is good, and it sounds as though you want to see the best in others. I do too, but after being on the receiving end of being declared a "Jezebel" myself, I did a lot of peering into the history of Christianity -- and what I found was beyond unsavory (such as doctrine being decided by the point of the sword, rather than by the Holy Spirit).
Man's inhumanity to man, evil that comes out of the heart of man, is all too prevalent in the pages of Christian history.
Methinks Jesus wants His reputation back...!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
Posted by Sigismund on December 27, 2008, at 1:42:43
In reply to Antisemitism in Christianity, posted by Bobby on December 26, 2008, at 23:12:49
>and I can't comprehend how Christians can be antisemitic.
They aren't now (in the US certainly), but they were sometimes in Europe in the past.
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.