![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2010, at 1:21:57
In reply to Re: Lou's request-one of 6 topics, posted by Conundrum on October 25, 2010, at 16:16:12
> I appreciate your concern for the rest of us here at Babble, but I also think you may want to think about the *positive* impact proper use of medication can have on the lives of people afflicted with mental illness (and those around them).
>
> Christ_empowered> I may be able to relate with lou.
>
> I see where Lou may be coming from, and if his head is where mine was and sometimes still is, he is just trying to prevent others from getting hurt by these drugs.
>
> People need to know the good and the bad that can come from taking these drugs, and decide for themselves what is best.
>
> ConundrumThanks for encouraging balance. If for whatever reason a particular poster presents only one side, then I think I'd see it as up to other posters to present the other sides. It would be a kind of division of labor, with the end result still being balanced.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 1, 2010, at 1:23:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2010, at 18:15:51
> > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
>
> If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
>
> But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
>
> More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobMr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
The two prohibition that I know of are1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
Here are my concerns.
A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 1, 2010, at 1:23:28
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2010, at 13:37:14
> > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> >
> > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> >
> > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> >
> > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> The two prohibition that I know of are
>
> 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> Here are my concerns.
> A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
Lou Pilder
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2010, at 15:14:13
In reply to Lou's reply-gudfordhaguze, posted by Lou Pilder on November 1, 2010, at 1:23:28
It certainly seems to me that the lengths one would have to go to follow Lou's instructions for finding specific videos Lou wants to highlight--1) pulling up Google, 2) typing in the search terms, 3) selecting from the results, 4) clicking play on the video--transfers the responsibility for receiving the information in the video from Lou to the individual.
I think prohibiting Lou from suggesting searches is extreme and unnecessary.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2010, at 18:10:27
In reply to Lou's reply-gudfordhaguze, posted by Lou Pilder on November 1, 2010, at 1:23:28
> > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > >
> > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > >
> > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > >
> > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > The two prohibition that I know of are
> >
> > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > Here are my concerns.
> > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
Lou Pilder
Posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 10:48:27
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2010, at 18:10:27
My thoughts on this thread:
If Lou is wanting to post information or links that relate to a personal experience of his own, I don't see how that would violate the terms of this site. I can see that it would be a problem if he was presenting the information or links to information as empirical evidence.
As far as I can tell, all along Lou has been saying that he is relating his own experiences and in doing so is hoping to be of help to others. I would think this would be acceptable to Dr Bob's terms of how PsychoBabble should be used.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2010, at 20:11:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder and-request for rationale » Lou Pilder, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 10:48:27
> It certainly seems to me that the lengths one would have to go to follow Lou's instructions for finding specific videos Lou wants to highlight ... transfers the responsibility for receiving the information in the video from Lou to the individual.
>
> ggThat's a good question. 12 steps is different than 1 step?
> As far as I can tell, all along Lou has been saying that he is relating his own experiences and in doing so is hoping to be of help to others.
>
> PartlyCloudyI'm fine with relating one's own experiences in a civil way.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2010, at 5:15:29
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2010, at 18:10:27
> > > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > > >
> > > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > > >
> > > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > >
> > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > > The two prohibition that I know of are
> > >
> > > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > > Here are my concerns.
> > > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> > You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
> A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
> B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
> C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
> D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordancwe with your policy to keep reminding you of outstanding requests and such, the above. It is of particular importance to me now to have dialog with you concerning my requests to you here for there could be people that die as a result IMHO from not being allowed by you to have infomation from me posted here or for me to be allowed to post here where they can find that information that I think could be life-saving and/or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2010, at 11:20:19
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale (2), posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2010, at 5:15:29
> > > > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > > > >
> > > > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > >
> > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > > > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > > > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > > > The two prohibition that I know of are
> > > >
> > > > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > > > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > > > Here are my concerns.
> > > > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > > > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > > > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > > > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > > > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> > > You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
> > A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
> > B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
> > C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
> > D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordancwe with your policy to keep reminding you of outstanding requests and such, the above. It is of particular importance to me now to have dialog with you concerning my requests to you here for there could be people that die as a result IMHO from not being allowed by you to have infomation from me posted here or for me to be allowed to post here where they can find that information that I think could be life-saving and/or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your policy here, the above.
My concerns now here are even more urgent for there are members here posting that I think could be helped if they were allowed to get information from me that you prohibit from posting here or even posting here where they can find it. Now I think that what I could post as to at least where to find it elsewhere could be life-saving and/or prevent one from getting a life-ruining condition.
I am asking now if you could have another psychiatrist post here to affirm your policy here of not allowing me to post where members could find what I am prohiibited from posting here. If you could do that, then I could respond to your guest speaker here. Now the areas of prohibition involve two decades of human history which some historians say is one of the most, if not the most important time in the history of humanity and by learning from that, the same mistakes in that time period could be looked at and others could learn from those mistakes. And is not learning one of the goals of this forum? And then there is the foundation of Judaism in relation to that it has been revealed to me a commandment from my God to me that I (redacted by respondent) so that I would like for your guest psychiatrist, if any, to post first concerning those aspects. There are more that I think that if I was allowed to post where others could get the information that that information is important also to help save lives.
Lou Pilder
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 8:55:42
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale (3), posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2010, at 11:20:19
Hello Bob
I admit to becoming lost in some of these threads, but I am also intrigued.
I'm wondering what can be so very awful that Lou Pilder is not able to post about it here. To be honest, I'm not certain what the subject even is any more.
From where I'm sitting and reading, there looks to be more conjecture than open, frank discussion going on.
Just my POV.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by Willful on December 22, 2010, at 9:13:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 8:55:42
Doesn't this all go back to a thread some 8-10 years ago that Lou thought was anti-semitic &, that was handled by Bob at the time in a way that Lou took exception to?
My impression is that this is a notification about a notification about a notification about a notification back into the distant past, all regarding a refusal by Bob to allow Lou to post or to link to material that he felt rebutted and answered the questionable statements (in Lou's opinion but apparently not in Bob's) or anti-semitic posts by a poster who is no longer here. This all took place on the faith board. All of it occurred before I came to Pbabble, so I don't know the exact discussion, and I think it would only be disturbing for everyone to stir this up.
Willful
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 11:05:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by Willful on December 22, 2010, at 9:13:21
> Doesn't this all go back to a thread some 8-10 years ago that Lou thought was anti-semitic &, that was handled by Bob at the time in a way that Lou took exception to?
>
> My impression is that this is a notification about a notification about a notification about a notification back into the distant past, all regarding a refusal by Bob to allow Lou to post or to link to material that he felt rebutted and answered the questionable statements (in Lou's opinion but apparently not in Bob's) or anti-semitic posts by a poster who is no longer here. This all took place on the faith board. All of it occurred before I came to Pbabble, so I don't know the exact discussion, and I think it would only be disturbing for everyone to stir this up.
>
> Willful
>
>Perhaps Lou would like the subject to be revisited in light of how other threads have been treated by the administration. I think I am getting developing a hint of what might have occurred here.
Who do you think would be disturbed by this being brought up again? I don't see much interest being displayed in this thread, do you? (Besides by us, that is.)
As I said, I am intrigued - because this issue looks to be circular in its pattern.
pc
Posted by Willful on December 22, 2010, at 12:22:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 11:05:01
Sorry, maybe I was overgeneralizing from myself. I would be disturbed if this were stirred up.
Willful
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 15:00:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by Willful on December 22, 2010, at 12:22:02
> Sorry, maybe I was overgeneralizing from myself. I would be disturbed if this were stirred up.
>
> WillfulStruggling to understand.
Don't want to disturb you.
You're saying on the one hand that this dates back 8 or 10 years and you're not familiar with the original discussion itself or what it was about.
And you are also saying on the other hand that you find this current thread to be disturbing.Am I clear on that? I will drop out of this thread upon clarification, as I don't intend to rile you up, Willful.
I appreciate your response.
pc
Posted by Willful on December 23, 2010, at 1:17:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob » Willful, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 22, 2010, at 15:00:13
One reason I didn't go into any details other than to say that the subject was anti-semitism was that I didn't want to look it up to be more certain of my recollection.
I do remember a lot of what was in that thread, as I read it years ago, when I first came here and even at that time, Lou was posting attempts to cite or link to refutations of the ideas that were expressed. So I read some of the original posts,. While I remember fragments of it now, I don't have the details nailed down, so I would have to refresh my recollection to say more about it. Since I found it disturbing then I really didn't want to search for it, or reread it.
Also I didn't want to stir things up more than to say the topic was anti-semitism. I thought the issue had been satisfactorily resolved by Bob at the time-- and didn't want to stir things up myself by going into it more now either.
But actually unnecessary discussions of anti-semitism seem so inflammatory-- stirring up lots of animus among people without resolving anything. It's just an upsetting topic to me, and unless something would be accomplished by invoking it, I personally would rather not. Lou has been alluding to and asking to bring up the original issue for years-- because for him it wasn't resolved, I guess, emotionally. And he would apparently get some meaning from having more done to sanction the no longer posting poster-- as well as being able to discuss the issue and be vindicated in some way.
I think I would find anything that would be posted now on that old discussion to be deeply disheartening-- which I find racial slurs and insults of all types-- and gender or sexual prefernce put downs-- or other things like that, which are making people reexperience a lot of bad experiences or feelings about themselves. As I said, there to me needs to be a good reason for this.
And I 'm convinced that Bob would have no intention of going back and revisiting this, as he' s been in essence making clear for years by refusing to let anything more be brought up about it here.by engaging as he has in the long-running sequence of years of notifications about notifications.
At least this is my understanding of what's going on. I hope this explains my feelings somewhat better
Willful
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 23, 2010, at 8:04:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by Willful on December 23, 2010, at 1:17:51
Willful,
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I can certainly understand your position. I think I can also understand where Lou is coming from - feeling that the issue hadn't been resolved satisfactorily in his personal view.I don't post on the Faith board for a specific reason. I think I had been hoping for a world-view and discussion of Faith issues, and I haven't found that to be the case; it's more narrow in scope than that. We don't see, for example, points of view from many varying religions. To me, what Lou is attempting to do is as simple as introducing a different religion's point of view. I *do* understand that such a discussion could in itself be upsetting - but I personally don't feel that it would overstep the civility guidelines.
And with that, I'll try not to stir up anything more. Again, I really appreciate you explaining your position.
best regards,
PartlyCloudy
Posted by muffled on December 24, 2010, at 23:43:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob » Willful, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 23, 2010, at 8:04:36
> Willful,
> Thanks for taking the time to explain. I can certainly understand your position. I think I can also understand where Lou is coming from - feeling that the issue hadn't been resolved satisfactorily in his personal view.
> best regards,
> PartlyCloudyPC you so sweet. It would be nice if Lou could find some resolution and maybe peace.
But I dunno what the answer is.
I agree, could get ugly I suppose.
Peoples just people. I wish the world could get along better.
I wished there was no evil and kids never got hurt.
That there was no pain.
But it IS all part of our world, and maybe what helps us grow.
I dunno.
I just like to figger theres a big cosmic reason, bigger than any of us, that knows whats going on....and is for the greater good.
Its a tough world :(
But there's alot that is good and beautiful too.
So I try and see that as best I can too.
In people, in life.
I try.
M
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 25, 2010, at 7:55:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder --) Dr Bob, posted by muffled on December 24, 2010, at 23:43:52
> > Willful,
> > Thanks for taking the time to explain. I can certainly understand your position. I think I can also understand where Lou is coming from - feeling that the issue hadn't been resolved satisfactorily in his personal view.
> > best regards,
> > PartlyCloudy
>
> PC you so sweet. It would be nice if Lou could find some resolution and maybe peace.
> But I dunno what the answer is.
> I agree, could get ugly I suppose.
> Peoples just people. I wish the world could get along better.
> I wished there was no evil and kids never got hurt.
> That there was no pain.
> But it IS all part of our world, and maybe what helps us grow.
> I dunno.
> I just like to figger theres a big cosmic reason, bigger than any of us, that knows whats going on....and is for the greater good.
> Its a tough world :(
> But there's alot that is good and beautiful too.
> So I try and see that as best I can too.
> In people, in life.
> I try.
> MMuffled, you are sweet too!
We are both working for the improvement of what we see here. And yes, it is a tough world, but there are oases of beauty that lessen the bitterness and hurt.
Merry Christmas to you.
pc
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2011, at 4:47:28
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale (3), posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2010, at 11:20:19
> > > > > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > > > > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > > > > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > > > > The two prohibition that I know of are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > > > > Here are my concerns.
> > > > > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > > > > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > > > > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > > > > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> > > > You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
> > > A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
> > > B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
> > > C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
> > > D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordancwe with your policy to keep reminding you of outstanding requests and such, the above. It is of particular importance to me now to have dialog with you concerning my requests to you here for there could be people that die as a result IMHO from not being allowed by you to have infomation from me posted here or for me to be allowed to post here where they can find that information that I think could be life-saving and/or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your policy here, the above.
> My concerns now here are even more urgent for there are members here posting that I think could be helped if they were allowed to get information from me that you prohibit from posting here or even posting here where they can find it. Now I think that what I could post as to at least where to find it elsewhere could be life-saving and/or prevent one from getting a life-ruining condition.
> I am asking now if you could have another psychiatrist post here to affirm your policy here of not allowing me to post where members could find what I am prohiibited from posting here. If you could do that, then I could respond to your guest speaker here. Now the areas of prohibition involve two decades of human history which some historians say is one of the most, if not the most important time in the history of humanity and by learning from that, the same mistakes in that time period could be looked at and others could learn from those mistakes. And is not learning one of the goals of this forum? And then there is the foundation of Judaism in relation to that it has been revealed to me a commandment from my God to me that I (redacted by respondent) so that I would like for your guest psychiatrist, if any, to post first concerning those aspects. There are more that I think that if I was allowed to post where others could get the information that that information is important also to help save lives.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
As to your policy here to keep remindinng you, the above.
Lou Pilder
PS I also would like to add the folowing:
E. In your prohibition to me not to post here where people can find information concerning what you have prohibited me from posting here, could I post here for members to email me for this information?
F. If not, and a member does email me for this information, would you do anything to that member that does email me and ask me for the information assuming you found out? If so, what would you do to those that do email me for the information?
G. What could be any consequences ,if any, in your thinking, to the ones that do obtain the information that you say I can not tell others where to find? If they received the prohibited information and it helped them to make a more informed decision as to take a mind-altering drug that could cause death or a life-ruining condition, could that be harmful or not, to those that get the information, in your thinking?
H. Are you in the understanding of any historical parallels to your sanction to me here to not post where others could find information that you prohibit from posting here? If you are, could you post here the era of time that has the parallel to your sanction to me here?
K. Could you list other prohibited information that I have not listed here that you say can not be posted here as to where one can find it elsewhere? If not, could you post your rationale, if any, to justify such a rule by you?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 9:02:34
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale(s) (4), posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2011, at 4:47:28
> > > > > > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > > > > > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > > > > > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > > > > > The two prohibition that I know of are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > > > > > Here are my concerns.
> > > > > > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > > > > > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > > > > > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > > > > > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> > > > > You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > > Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
> > > > A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
> > > > B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
> > > > C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
> > > > D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In accordancwe with your policy to keep reminding you of outstanding requests and such, the above. It is of particular importance to me now to have dialog with you concerning my requests to you here for there could be people that die as a result IMHO from not being allowed by you to have infomation from me posted here or for me to be allowed to post here where they can find that information that I think could be life-saving and/or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordance with your policy here, the above.
> > My concerns now here are even more urgent for there are members here posting that I think could be helped if they were allowed to get information from me that you prohibit from posting here or even posting here where they can find it. Now I think that what I could post as to at least where to find it elsewhere could be life-saving and/or prevent one from getting a life-ruining condition.
> > I am asking now if you could have another psychiatrist post here to affirm your policy here of not allowing me to post where members could find what I am prohiibited from posting here. If you could do that, then I could respond to your guest speaker here. Now the areas of prohibition involve two decades of human history which some historians say is one of the most, if not the most important time in the history of humanity and by learning from that, the same mistakes in that time period could be looked at and others could learn from those mistakes. And is not learning one of the goals of this forum? And then there is the foundation of Judaism in relation to that it has been revealed to me a commandment from my God to me that I (redacted by respondent) so that I would like for your guest psychiatrist, if any, to post first concerning those aspects. There are more that I think that if I was allowed to post where others could get the information that that information is important also to help save lives.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> As to your policy here to keep remindinng you, the above.
> Lou Pilder
> PS I also would like to add the folowing:
> E. In your prohibition to me not to post here where people can find information concerning what you have prohibited me from posting here, could I post here for members to email me for this information?
> F. If not, and a member does email me for this information, would you do anything to that member that does email me and ask me for the information assuming you found out? If so, what would you do to those that do email me for the information?
> G. What could be any consequences ,if any, in your thinking, to the ones that do obtain the information that you say I can not tell others where to find? If they received the prohibited information and it helped them to make a more informed decision as to take a mind-altering drug that could cause death or a life-ruining condition, could that be harmful or not, to those that get the information, in your thinking?
> H. Are you in the understanding of any historical parallels to your sanction to me here to not post where others could find information that you prohibit from posting here? If you are, could you post here the era of time that has the parallel to your sanction to me here?
> K. Could you list other prohibited information that I have not listed here that you say can not be posted here as to where one can find it elsewhere? If not, could you post your rationale, if any, to justify such a rule by you?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regars to your reminder policy, the above.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2012, at 9:42:03
In reply to Lou's reminder and-request for rationale(s) (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 9:02:34
> > > > > > > > > Here is a site that includes some of what I am prohibited from posting here
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung, Please redirect this to the admin board for I do not know the mechanics in doing so.
> > > > > > > You wrote,[...If you're prohibited from posting something here, please don't post how to find it elsewhere...].
> > > > > > > I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond according.
> > > > > > > The two prohibition that I know of are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 That I do not post that it has been revealed to me from the god that I give service and worship to a commandment to me that I (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > > 2. That I do not post what could be about the involvment in any way concening paychiatry or the chemistry that is in the historical record concerning a particular historical time period.
> > > > > > > Here are my concerns.
> > > > > > > A. Your statement to me states that one here can not post {how to find} those facts concerning those prohibitions by you. Here are some of my concerns:
> > > > > > > 1A. Could one here post that there will be a TV program airing on a particular channel at a particular time concerning those prohibitions by you from posting here?
> > > > > > > 2A. Could one post here to purchase a book at a particular store concerning those prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > > > 3A. Could someone post here to go to an expert on the history of Judaism to discuss and find out about the prohibitions from posting by you here?
> > > > > > > 4A. Could someone post here to go to the site of the Anti-Defamation League and ask them to discuss the prohibitons from posting as you state here?
> > > > > > > 5A. Is there a balance here with your (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > > 6A. I want to give infomation that I think here will save lives and that infomation could be in what you prohibit from posting here. But now you say that I can not post here how to get that infomation. If you think redacted by respondent)
> > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > Your prohibition that one here can not post telling how one could obtain infomation that you prohibit to be posted here brings up what you are doing here in relation to how you direct people to what is prohibited here.
> > > > > > You have posted a link that directs one to a table of contents that one could use to see a prohibited statement. You say that one would have to click twice to see it so you allow that way to see the prohibited, by you, content. You also have a post here with a search feature that one can look up what could be prohibited to post here. So there are ways to lead members to what you prohibit from posting, and even that you have used the table of contents method to allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > > > Now I think that my format of having a member to click at least twice to see what you prohibit from posting is no different {from an ethical perspective} from that you have provided a link to what you posted, which was prohibited content, that leads to a table of contents that could allow mwmbers to see what you prohibit from posting used the table of contents method to allow mwmbers to see what was once posted by you, that you posted and then . I also think that by you allowing a search page for members that they could find what was removed to be in an ethical perspective to be analogous to the table of contents method that you use here to allow people to see what you say is prohibited from being posted. You see, I, in good faith, followed your example and can not understand why there is any difference, for my way and your way still allow members to see what you prohibit from posting.
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > In accordance with your policy that if someone here wants to know your rationale for something to just please ask, and to post a reminder that requests are outstanding, I am asking that you please post here your rationale(s) for the following:
> > > > > A. I have several requests to you here and by them remaining outstanding, there could be IMHO people that could die or suffer a life-ruining condition as a result of me not knowing the answers from you to my requests in the above posts and thearfore being not permitted by you to post here {where they can find the infomation} until I have answers from you concerning the ways that I have asked you here as to if they can be permitted by you or not. If you posted answers to my requests, then I could either post here a way that you permit to find infomation that you say I can not {tell them how to find it elsewhere} or seek some other way to get what I think could be life-saving infomation or infomation that could prevemt a life-ruing condition that could be brought on by the drugs in question.
> > > > > B. What also is your rationale for you allowing yourself to post a link to a table of contents that has prohibited content and you say that it can be done by you since one needs to click twice to see it. The rationale I am asking for here is if I can not do that by using the format that I use that needs more than one click, why can you use the 2 click format and if I can not, what is your rationale for that?
> > > > > C. If I can use the 2 click format, then what is your rationale for telling me that I can not tell others how they can obtain infomation (if they have to click more than once, which gardenergirl here has pointed out that they have to click many times)?
> > > > > D. One of your prohibitions concerns the foundation of Judaism. What is your rationale (redacted by respondent)
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > In accordancwe with your policy to keep reminding you of outstanding requests and such, the above. It is of particular importance to me now to have dialog with you concerning my requests to you here for there could be people that die as a result IMHO from not being allowed by you to have infomation from me posted here or for me to be allowed to post here where they can find that information that I think could be life-saving and/or prevent them from getting a life-ruining condition.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In accordance with your policy here, the above.
> > > My concerns now here are even more urgent for there are members here posting that I think could be helped if they were allowed to get information from me that you prohibit from posting here or even posting here where they can find it. Now I think that what I could post as to at least where to find it elsewhere could be life-saving and/or prevent one from getting a life-ruining condition.
> > > I am asking now if you could have another psychiatrist post here to affirm your policy here of not allowing me to post where members could find what I am prohiibited from posting here. If you could do that, then I could respond to your guest speaker here. Now the areas of prohibition involve two decades of human history which some historians say is one of the most, if not the most important time in the history of humanity and by learning from that, the same mistakes in that time period could be looked at and others could learn from those mistakes. And is not learning one of the goals of this forum? And then there is the foundation of Judaism in relation to that it has been revealed to me a commandment from my God to me that I (redacted by respondent) so that I would like for your guest psychiatrist, if any, to post first concerning those aspects. There are more that I think that if I was allowed to post where others could get the information that that information is important also to help save lives.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > As to your policy here to keep remindinng you, the above.
> > Lou Pilder
> > PS I also would like to add the folowing:
> > E. In your prohibition to me not to post here where people can find information concerning what you have prohibited me from posting here, could I post here for members to email me for this information?
> > F. If not, and a member does email me for this information, would you do anything to that member that does email me and ask me for the information assuming you found out? If so, what would you do to those that do email me for the information?
> > G. What could be any consequences ,if any, in your thinking, to the ones that do obtain the information that you say I can not tell others where to find? If they received the prohibited information and it helped them to make a more informed decision as to take a mind-altering drug that could cause death or a life-ruining condition, could that be harmful or not, to those that get the information, in your thinking?
> > H. Are you in the understanding of any historical parallels to your sanction to me here to not post where others could find information that you prohibit from posting here? If you are, could you post here the era of time that has the parallel to your sanction to me here?
> > K. Could you list other prohibited information that I have not listed here that you say can not be posted here as to where one can find it elsewhere? If not, could you post your rationale, if any, to justify such a rule by you?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regars to your reminder policy, the above.Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder provision and to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2012, at 20:54:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder and-request for rationale » Lou Pilder, posted by PartlyCloudy on November 10, 2010, at 10:48:27
> My thoughts on this thread:
>
> If Lou is wanting to post information or links that relate to a personal experience of his own, I don't see how that would violate the terms of this site. I can see that it would be a problem if he was presenting the information or links to information as empirical evidence.
>
> As far as I can tell, all along Lou has been saying that he is relating his own experiences and in doing so is hoping to be of help to others. I would think this would be acceptable to Dr Bob's terms of how PsychoBabble should be used.
>
> PartlyCloudy
>
PartlyCloudy,
You wrote,[...as I can tell..Lou..is hoping to be of help to others...].
The site here is for support and education. The prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung prevent me from offering help to others from my perspective as my perspective would be from a Jewish perspective that the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me is prohibited by Mr Hsiung to me from posting here.
Now if you are considering further postings in this thread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you do a search such as [anti-Judaism, wikipedia]. Then if we continue any dialog, we could have a reference for anti-Judaism. Then if you do a search such as ,[antisemitism, wikipedia], that could also be of help in any discussion here for reference. You see, Judaism is a point of view, is it not? The fact that Jews have a commandment to them from the God that they give service and worship to does not mean that others could not have different commandments, or no commandments at all, from the god that they give service and worship to.
You see, when I came here, I read Mr Hsiung's terms of service and he states that different points of view are encouraged. My point of view from a Jewish perspective is one that has been revealed to me to I took him at his word.
What has been revealed to me goes beyond psychiatry/psychology and it has been revealed to me a way for people to overcome depression and addiction and have a way for one to be healed. Healed from the damage that drugs prescribed by a psychaitrist that could have done to someone, and healed from addiction from those drugs.
Now when I first came here I wrote about The Crown of Life and wanted to post here how one could have that Crown. A Crown is for a king. And when one has The Crown of Life they are a king. They have no one that could govern their life and tell them what is right for them, for they are a king that no one tells what to do. This Crown makes one free from depression, free from other people's dictates to them, because they have the Crown of Life and become a king. You see, then when one has the Crown of Life, they do not need any other person to tell them how to live, for a king is a master. And when you have the Crown of Life you are the master of Life. No one could master you, you are free from all people's dominion over you, no one can control you, not even a mastermind. You become the master of your life. You become a king (or a queen). And in that Day when you receive The Crown of Life, you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Lou
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.