![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 411 to 435 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 10:05:54
In reply to Lou's response-ptdwnuddrphaithz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 9:52:09
> > > Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> >
> > Is to libel God also libeling all those who would believe in Him? Maybe. Just a question.
> >
> > Is it libel to God to recommend to someone that they believe in the divinity of a statue? What about recommending to others that they believe in a different model of religion than those the Jews and Christians believe in; all of this without recommending the rejecting of any other god specifically? Can I tell someone that they are a good person without having to identify a bad person.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> Let us look at this post..
> Lou
> [ faith, 392216 ]correction:
[ admin, 392214 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 11:29:00
In reply to Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-libel » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 8:22:53
> > > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> > >
> > > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> >
> > That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
> >
> > > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
> >
> > I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
> >
> > > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
> >
> > OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
> >
> > > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
> >
> > That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...I am not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you...}
> and,
> [...how would I know if you were under any burden...?]
> and,
> [...I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held...]
> and,
> [...Nor do I see that posting that you are under a burden is libel...]
> and,
> [...Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel..?]
> Let us understand here that I am made the subject by the poster, and that you and your deputies can control the content as seen by the fact that you post to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused, and not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and not to post what could be seen as jumping to a conclusion about someone. You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another. This is further exemplified in the fact that you state that if a statement is seen here unsanctioned by you and your deputies, that readers could think that what is posted is not against your rules and is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. You also have a notification system to alert posts to you and your deputies that you say that you use except that you give yourself the option to ignore my notifications to you so that it will be good for others to see that you do not have to respond to me.
> Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me in that what is in question, that the God that I give service and worship to has imposed a treacherous form of slavery upon me, is stated without sanction by you or any of up to six deputies of yours that act in your behalf when you are not on line. You even state here as to how anyone would know if I was under any burden. The statement by the poster is false, and brings me into ridicule, hatred and scorn of others. The statement, on a mental health forum chaired by a psychiatrist with deputies to control the content, offers an expectation of protection from harmful statements to the users of the site. If you and your deputies continue to not post a repudiation of the harmful statement against me, then a subset of readers could think, IMHO, that all of you are being malicious toward me which harms me even more by bringing me into focus as a target that does not get the protection from you and your deputies that others receive as that you post sanctions to other statements that put down or accuse or jump to a conclusion about others here. This is what the crux of libel is. Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at that you posted to me,
[...I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate)what was said about you...].
Your TOS states that unsanctioned (un repudiated) statements could be thought by readers to be not against the rules of yours. By leaving the statement that libels another unsanctioned, there could be a subset of readers that could think that you are validating the libel. Then by posting a repudiation by you, that could show that you are not validating the libel.
What could also be thought by a subset of readers, is that by you not posting a repudiation to the libel, that you could really be intentionally developing or contributing to the objectionable material which misrepresents your contention in your TOS that if something is not supportive, it should not be posted for support takes precedence, even if one believes the objectionable material, even if one is quoting someone else, and even if it is somewhat true.
What could be worse is that by you leaving the objectionable material without repudiation by you or your deputies, a subset of readers IMHO could think that you are designing your site to be a portal for anti-Semitic expression. There is historical reference to when one is a publisher that plays a significant role in developing content where Jewish readers could feel humiliated, ridiculed and belittled and have their faith insulted. Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 10:46:06
In reply to Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvragn, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 11:29:00
> You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
> Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
2. Y could say he isn't short.I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
> the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2014, at 17:37:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 10:46:06
> > You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
>
> I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
>
> > Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
>
> Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
>
> 1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
> 2. Y could say he isn't short.
>
> I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
>
> > the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
>
> That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above.
Let us look at these two posts.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044544.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051121.html
The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. This shield will not prevent me from breaking my leg or getting killed in an airplane crash or from emotional/psychological harm that could come to me from libel against me or prevent me from being a victim of anti-Semitic violence. What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
I am prevented from posting here what IMHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to your prohibitions posted to me here, for if not for those prohibitions by you to me here, I could post how those that harbor hate could overcome those shackles and be freed from the bondage of hate and have a new life and sing a new song.
But the post in question here belittles me as a Jew that could cause a subset of readers to think that you are ratifying the ridicule of me for being a Jew because you state that un sanctioned posts could be thought that what is posted, to not be against your rules. That could lead those to post analogous statements and for a subset of readers to feel that Jews are an inferior group of people to humiliate here because you do not sanction what could lead a Jew to feel put down in this post in question. The post is a response by the poster to a subject line of the poster that wrote about the Israelites being delivered out of slavery in Egypt that had the commandments to the Jews given to Moses after the Exodus. The post is not about me, but about all Jews. I am just used as a example because the poster knows that I am one Jew here to use for the statement that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
The mockery of Jews, if allowed to stand, could be thought by a subset of readers that you are validating what the statement says as being supportive by you, and will be good for this community as a whole. I can not stop that kind of thinking by those that see you as having that in your mind, for it is you that controls the content here by allowing hate to stand or not. The hate against Jews that can be seen by a subset of readers could spread like a fire even if I was to post a denial that I have a burden imposed into me by the God in question and even if you change your rules so that you do not have to be a fireman to put out the fire of hate here. Your changing of your rules is {after the fact} and could be seen by a subset of readers as a transparent attempt to immunize you from responsibility where no immunization IMHO is deserved. There is historical precedence where the leader of a country changed the rules to allow hatred toward the Jews to abound. Never again.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2014, at 10:58:36
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ekspoazphaktoe » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2014, at 17:37:48
> > > You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
> >
> > I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
> >
> > > Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
> >
> > Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
> >
> > 1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
> > 2. Y could say he isn't short.
> >
> > I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
> >
> > > the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> >
> > That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote the above.
> Let us look at these two posts.
> Lou PIlder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044544.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051121.html
> The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. This shield will not prevent me from breaking my leg or getting killed in an airplane crash or from emotional/psychological harm that could come to me from libel against me or prevent me from being a victim of anti-Semitic violence. What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
> I am prevented from posting here what IMHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to your prohibitions posted to me here, for if not for those prohibitions by you to me here, I could post how those that harbor hate could overcome those shackles and be freed from the bondage of hate and have a new life and sing a new song.
> But the post in question here belittles me as a Jew that could cause a subset of readers to think that you are ratifying the ridicule of me for being a Jew because you state that un sanctioned posts could be thought that what is posted, to not be against your rules. That could lead those to post analogous statements and for a subset of readers to feel that Jews are an inferior group of people to humiliate here because you do not sanction what could lead a Jew to feel put down in this post in question. The post is a response by the poster to a subject line of the poster that wrote about the Israelites being delivered out of slavery in Egypt that had the commandments to the Jews given to Moses after the Exodus. The post is not about me, but about all Jews. I am just used as a example because the poster knows that I am one Jew here to use for the statement that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
> The mockery of Jews, if allowed to stand, could be thought by a subset of readers that you are validating what the statement says as being supportive by you, and will be good for this community as a whole. I can not stop that kind of thinking by those that see you as having that in your mind, for it is you that controls the content here by allowing hate to stand or not. The hate against Jews that can be seen by a subset of readers could spread like a fire even if I was to post a denial that I have a burden imposed into me by the God in question and even if you change your rules so that you do not have to be a fireman to put out the fire of hate here. Your changing of your rules is {after the fact} and could be seen by a subset of readers as a transparent attempt to immunize you from responsibility where no immunization IMHO is deserved. There is historical precedence where the leader of a country changed the rules to allow hatred toward the Jews to abound. Never again.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...But maybe the second does not need to be contingent on the first since you may not be too concerned about what others think about you. Since you have a shield. If that is the case, let me know, and I will go ahead with the second...].
I am unsure as to if you are going to address the second part of the objectionable statement against the Jews or not. I contend that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to and is an anti-Semitic statement regardless of what the first part says about me. Yet today, you say what I have posted in this post that you wrote.
Looking at what you wrote, I need to know if you are or are not going to post your repudiation as that I have responded to you that the shield of faith does not stop what could cause emotional distress inflicted upon me by seeing libel toward me unsanctioned here, or statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings that could mean that a subset of readers could think that it is not against your rules to post such and I am concerned about what others think about me and what could be thought about the Jews. So if you could let me know what you intend to do, I could respond accordingly.
A. I will post a repudiation only to the second part of the statement.
B. I will post a repudiation to the second part which could also be a repudiation of the first part
C. I will post separate repudiations to each part
D. I will not post a repudiation of the second part because you say that you are concerned about what readers think about you and the Shield doe snot protect you from any harm that could come to you that could arise out of the statement being allowed to stand.
E. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2014, at 4:05:16
In reply to Lou's repy- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wytzuhpdk, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2014, at 10:58:36
> > The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. ... What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
OK, I misunderstood. It protects you from hate, but not from hurt.
> E. something else
My current idea is:
I won't post a repudiation of the first part. If you want to, that's fine. If you chose to let the first part stand, that's fine, too.
I won't exactly post a repudiation of the second part, either. I'll address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery would be putting down that God. I'm not sure it would be. I don't see saying God imposed suffering on Job as putting down God. Is a treacherous form of slavery so different? It's not clear to me that it is.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2014, at 20:20:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2014, at 4:05:16
> > > The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. ... What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
>
> OK, I misunderstood. It protects you from hate, but not from hurt.
>
> > E. something else
>
> My current idea is:
>
> I won't post a repudiation of the first part. If you want to, that's fine. If you chose to let the first part stand, that's fine, too.
>
> I won't exactly post a repudiation of the second part, either. I'll address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery would be putting down that God. I'm not sure it would be. I don't see saying God imposed suffering on Job as putting down God. Is a treacherous form of slavery so different? It's not clear to me that it is.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I won't exactly post a repudiation...I'll address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery would be putting down that God...I don't see saying God imposed suffering on Job as putting down God...Is a treacherous form of slavery so different?...].
The post is not about Job. I am the subject person in the post. Your rules are to not post what could put down/accuse another or jump to a conclusion or overgeneralize. To say that Job had suffering imposed by God to him does not mean that all Jews will have suffering imposed upon them. And the subject is not suffering, but slavery imposed to me by God.
The post says that the god that I give service and worship to imposes a treacherous form of slavery to me by saying that I have a burden to save souls. There is no evidence stated to lead to that conclusion. The statement is false and could lead me to feel put down. The rule by you is not to post what puts down, but to not post anything that could lead one to {feel} put down and you also agree that you can not substitute your feelings for other's feelings. There is overgeneralization to apply what happened to Job to all Jews. But it is much more than this. The statement insults that God that the Jews give service an worship to by claiming that God uses a treacherous form of slavery imposed into those that worship Him by using me as an example. The use of {treacherous} is an insult to the {character} of the God in question that the Jews cherish. The statement says that God is a liar and a deceiver and not to be trusted. The claim is false and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to a subset of people and lead a subset of Jewish readers to feel shame and humiliation and ridicule. You want to allow it? There was a time when it was promulgated throughout the land, propaganda to humiliate the Jews and insult the God that they cherish and to ridicule Jews.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2014, at 4:52:23
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-woent » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2014, at 20:20:46
> The post is not about Job. I am the subject person in the post.
I see the post as having 2 parts. You're the subject of the 1st, and God is the subject of the 2nd. You're in the best position to repudiate the 1st part, for example:
> The post says ... that I have a burden to save souls. There is no evidence stated to lead to that conclusion. The statement is false
I'm open to addressing the 2nd part:
> To say that Job had suffering imposed by God to him does not mean that all Jews will have suffering imposed upon them. And the subject is not suffering, but slavery imposed to me by God.
In that case, wouldn't it follow that saying God imposed a treacherous form of slavery on you doesn't mean God will impose a treacherous form of slavery on all Jews?
> The use of {treacherous} is an insult to the {character} of the God in question that the Jews cherish. The statement says that God is a liar and a deceiver and not to be trusted. The claim is false and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to a subset of people and lead a subset of Jewish readers to feel shame and humiliation and ridicule.
"Job ... was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." Yet God imposed suffering on Job. Could that lead a subset of people to feel God is not to be trusted?
> > treacherous
> > 2 a : likely to betray trustCould the Book of Job evoke feelings of shame, humiliation, and anti-Semitism?
> Never again.
That seemed familiar, but I couldn't place it, so I did a quick search:
> > the slogan of the Jewish Defense League
> > The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a Jewish religious-political militant organization whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary". While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism" and states that it has a "strict no-tolerance policy against terrorism and other felonious acts", it was classified as "a right-wing terrorist group" by the FBI in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2014, at 8:20:56
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2014, at 4:52:23
> > The post is not about Job. I am the subject person in the post.
>
> I see the post as having 2 parts. You're the subject of the 1st, and God is the subject of the 2nd. You're in the best position to repudiate the 1st part, for example:
>
> > The post says ... that I have a burden to save souls. There is no evidence stated to lead to that conclusion. The statement is false
>
> I'm open to addressing the 2nd part:
>
> > To say that Job had suffering imposed by God to him does not mean that all Jews will have suffering imposed upon them. And the subject is not suffering, but slavery imposed to me by God.
>
> In that case, wouldn't it follow that saying God imposed a treacherous form of slavery on you doesn't mean God will impose a treacherous form of slavery on all Jews?
>
> > The use of {treacherous} is an insult to the {character} of the God in question that the Jews cherish. The statement says that God is a liar and a deceiver and not to be trusted. The claim is false and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to a subset of people and lead a subset of Jewish readers to feel shame and humiliation and ridicule.
>
> "Job ... was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." Yet God imposed suffering on Job. Could that lead a subset of people to feel God is not to be trusted?
>
> > > treacherous
> > > 2 a : likely to betray trust
>
> Could the Book of Job evoke feelings of shame, humiliation, and anti-Semitism?
>
> > Never again.
>
> That seemed familiar, but I couldn't place it, so I did a quick search:
>
> > > the slogan of the Jewish Defense League
>
> > > The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a Jewish religious-political militant organization whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary". While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism" and states that it has a "strict no-tolerance policy against terrorism and other felonious acts", it was classified as "a right-wing terrorist group" by the FBI in 2001.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I did a quick search..] and found that the Jewish Defense League uses the motto, "never again".
There could IMHO be a subset of readers that could think that you could be wanting to mean that the slogan, "never again" is exclusively adopted by the JDL or even coined by them by your citation to Wikipedia. And those readers could think a lot more from what you wrote here, including IMHO what could put me in a false light and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disagreeable and disparaging feeling and opinions against me and that I could be associated with the JDL. This is compounded by your prohibitions posted to me that prevent me from fully answering you in the manner that I need to from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me,in order to stop you and you deputies of record and anyone else you get to be in concert with you to post messages that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, from allowing anti-Semitic messages to be seen here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole
The expression, "never again" was not formulated by the JDL. The JDL uses the phrase like a great number of other Jews and others, including the President of the United States. It is not exclusive to the JDL and I am not a member of that group nor do I support violence to repudiate hatred toward the Jews, even in internet content providers that allow anti-Semitism to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for a community as a whole.
Please note my objection for you to post what could have the potential IMHO to arouse ill-will toward Jews in that your citation of the JDL could IMHO falsely associate Jews with the JDL in its use of the phrase "never again".
The phrase, "never again" has an origin. Here it is:
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/x201cnever-againx201d
And here it is used by the President of the United States:
http://www.haaretz.com/Jewish-world/obama-we-must-prove-that-never-again-is-not-an-empty-slogan-1.425528
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2014, at 23:11:27
In reply to Lou' reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phalzlyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2014, at 8:20:56
> There could IMHO be a subset of readers that could think that ... I could be associated with the JDL.
> The expression, "never again" was not formulated by the JDL. The JDL uses the phrase like a great number of other Jews and others, including the President of the United States. It is not exclusive to the JDL and I am not a member of that group nor do I support violence to repudiate hatred toward the JewsThanks for clarifying that. I agree, a subset of readers could've thought that. Though members of the JDL are welcome here, too.
Bob
Posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 10:11:17
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2014, at 23:11:27
The older of the two, the ADL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League
and the newer organization, the JDL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
http://www.fact-index.com/j/je/jewish_defense_league.html
* I can't find a US website for the JDL
As a person of Jewish heritage, I've been aware of what I consider frighteningly overzealous Zionism, which is obviously what the JDL is all about.
Note that the ADL is more like the ACLU, whereas the JDL has been described as militant, terrorist, etc..
I've met a few Israelis and many self-described Zionists. Every single one of them scared the crap out of me.
Posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 10:42:44
In reply to The JDL Is Different From the ADL, posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 10:11:17
A little search of PB shows that the phrase "Never Again" (the motto of the militant JDL) involving LP's posts/responses, appears 487 times. The term "ad nauseum" comes to mind.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2014, at 12:31:43
In reply to Re: The JDL Is Different From the ADL, posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 10:42:44
> A little search of PB shows that the phrase "Never Again" (the motto of the militant JDL) involving LP's posts/responses, appears 487 times. The term "ad nauseum" comes to mind.
Ronnjee,
You wrote,[...the phrase "Never Again"..(the motto of the militant JDL) involving LP's posts/responses appear 487 times..."ad nauseum" comes to mind...].
I am unsure as to what the point is that you are trying to make here, if any. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. You want to associate me with the JDL
B. There is a limit determined by you as to how many times a phrase can be seen here
C. (If so), you, Lou, have used it over your limit
D. The God that the Jews give service and worship to can have posts here that insult that God and be considered to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and will be good for this community as a whole.
E. Hate groups that are developed on the internet by anti-Semitism being allowed to be considered to be supportive by leading readers to think that the God that the Jews give service and worship to can be insulted, should be allowed to proliferate.
F. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Ronnjee on January 25, 2014, at 13:06:39
In reply to Lou's response- pstpum » Ronnjee, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2014, at 12:31:43
Lou, I respectfully decline your invitation for direct dialogue.
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 26, 2014, at 13:36:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2014, at 23:11:27
Bob are you aware that the JDL is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate Groups? Why would they be welcome on your board? Are members of the KKK and Al Quaida welcome too?
> Thanks for clarifying that. I agree, a subset of readers could've thought that. Though members of the JDL are welcome here, too.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2014, at 14:33:06
In reply to Why do you welcome members of hate groups? » Dr. Bob, posted by HomelyCygnet on January 26, 2014, at 13:36:33
> Bob are you aware that the JDL is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate Groups? Why would they be welcome on your board? Are members of the KKK and Al Quaida welcome too?
Sure, why not? I welcome members of those groups if they're interested in peer support (and if they follow the guidelines). Hating doesn't have to mean being hated.
Bob
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 26, 2014, at 14:40:49
In reply to Re: Why do you welcome members of hate groups?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2014, at 14:33:06
> > Bob are you aware that the JDL is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Hate Groups? Why would they be welcome on your board? Are members of the KKK and Al Quaida welcome too?
>
> Sure, why not? I welcome members of those groups if they're interested in peer support (and if they follow the guidelines). Hating doesn't have to mean being hated.
>
> BobI see your point but my thought was that to know they were members would require them to announce it on the board and just membership in those organizations is a statement of their beliefs without any further comment. Haters can be exquisitely civil as we've seen here on babble. Thanks for answering. I'd like to have my registration revoked here. I don't want to be a member of Psychobabble. Thanks
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2014, at 16:37:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2014, at 4:52:23
> > The post is not about Job. I am the subject person in the post.
>
> I see the post as having 2 parts. You're the subject of the 1st, and God is the subject of the 2nd. You're in the best position to repudiate the 1st part, for example:
>
> > The post says ... that I have a burden to save souls. There is no evidence stated to lead to that conclusion. The statement is false
>
> I'm open to addressing the 2nd part:
>
> > To say that Job had suffering imposed by God to him does not mean that all Jews will have suffering imposed upon them. And the subject is not suffering, but slavery imposed to me by God.
>
> In that case, wouldn't it follow that saying God imposed a treacherous form of slavery on you doesn't mean God will impose a treacherous form of slavery on all Jews?
>
> > The use of {treacherous} is an insult to the {character} of the God in question that the Jews cherish. The statement says that God is a liar and a deceiver and not to be trusted. The claim is false and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to a subset of people and lead a subset of Jewish readers to feel shame and humiliation and ridicule.
>
> "Job ... was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." Yet God imposed suffering on Job. Could that lead a subset of people to feel God is not to be trusted?
>
> > > treacherous
> > > 2 a : likely to betray trust
>
> Could the Book of Job evoke feelings of shame, humiliation, and anti-Semitism?
>
> > Never again.
>
> That seemed familiar, but I couldn't place it, so I did a quick search:
>
> > > the slogan of the Jewish Defense League
>
> > > The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a Jewish religious-political militant organization whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary". While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism" and states that it has a "strict no-tolerance policy against terrorism and other felonious acts", it was classified as "a right-wing terrorist group" by the FBI in 2001.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote, [...I am open to addressing the 2end part...].
The second part concerns what is known as theological anti-Semitism, or sometimes called anti-Judaism and characterizes the Jews in relation to insulting the God that the Jews give service and worship to by characterizing that God as a liar and not to be trusted. This could lead Jewish readers and others to feel put down and suffer humiliation and ridicule if it is allowed to be seen as supportive by you. And posts that are unsanctioned are said to be supportive by you and will be good for this community as a whole.
The statement as it is could lead IMHO a subset of readers to think that by you not addressing it that you are intentionally developing and validating the insult to that God which IMHO could reinforce hateful notions about Jews and allow a distorted presentation of Judaism to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and lay the groundwork for hatred toward the Jews to be developed here. And there is the possibility that readers here could see the statement as socially acceptable so that in their real life a foundation for real world hate and violence toward Jews could be fostered here. For if the statement is allowed to stand, more postings of the same nature about how Jews are characterized and more insults of the God in question could proliferate as posters could see that the statement could be thought to be ratified by you and your deputies of record then.
The statement as I contend, does not rest on what you want readers to think about what is in the book called, "Job" as to if what you posted is what you think after reading it or if you are using someone else's interpretation of the meaning of the book. The book has various interpretations, but so does the book called "Jonah". And so does the book called "Noah". And the scriptures that the Jews use do show that the God in those scriptures does choose particular people for a particular purpose. And because Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for three days and three nights, and we see that there has not been another person swallowed by a great fish, or another person to build an ark to save humanity as the animals from the Great Deluge, or another father to be told by God to take his son and kill him to be tested to this God, the study of those scriptures could give a different perspective from the one that you want to propose here concerning Job. For those scriptures show a progressive revelation and it is even written that this God said that He would never destroy the Earth by flood again. And when we read about Jesus of Nazareth, we see what happened once and for all time. And it is written, [...it pleased the Lord to bruise Him...]. And as Jonah suffered three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so did The Anointed One suffer for three days and three nights in The Heart of The Earth. And yet this same Jesus said, [..."Take up your cross and follow me"...]. Are Christians today to be under the same statement that I am objecting to here in that they have imposed into them a treacherous form of slavery by the same God?
The aspect of the statement in question as being used in theological anti-Semitism goes back to around 300 CE by those in Egypt that persecuted the Jews then. Almost the exact same line as the statement in question was used in a campaign to discredit the Jews and distort the meaning of Judaism to legitimize hatred toward the Jews then.
I contend that the statement in question is inconsistent with the forum's purpose, which is for support and to not post what could put down those of other faiths. You have posted that regardless of even if there is some truth to something, or even if the bible says it, being supportive takes precedent and if something is not supportive, not to post it. And worse than that, the book called Job is a book that revelation to the readers can come from. And remarkable, what I have been attempting to show here, that is prohibited by me to post due to your prohibitions posted to me here, is the revelation parallel to Job, in particular concerning what I have been attempting to post about The Great Gulf and The Great Deception.
If you are going to leave the statement to lead people that it is supportive, then let us go to the next post that I object to you leaving it unsanctioned to have the potential to be seen as supportive by a subset of readers.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 15:59:35
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ahntyjdzm » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2014, at 16:37:25
> I contend that the statement in question is inconsistent with the forum's purpose, which is for support and to not post what could put down those of other faiths. You have posted that regardless of even if there is some truth to something, or even if the bible says it, being supportive takes precedent and if something is not supportive, not to post it.
Hmm, you have a point there.
What about the "seemingly"? To me, it implies "not actually".
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 29, 2014, at 18:54:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 15:59:35
> > I contend that the statement in question is inconsistent with the forum's purpose, which is for support and to not post what could put down those of other faiths. You have posted that regardless of even if there is some truth to something, or even if the bible says it, being supportive takes precedent and if something is not supportive, not to post it.
>
> Hmm, you have a point there.
>
> What about the "seemingly"? To me, it implies "not actually".
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...to me it (seemingly) implies "not actually"...].
The word "seemingly" could mean for all intents and purposes. In your thinking, the meaning of "seemingly" could be understood as "not actually" under a specific literary use when an impossibility is what is "seemingly". For instance, suppose one was watching the Olympics on television and the high-jump was what people were watching. And one high-jumper broke the record. Then the commentator said, "He seemingly could jump to the moon." That is an impossibility.
But that is not the usage in the post in question, for what is "seemingly" is not an impossibility. The author of the post is commenting on me as a Jew because the author associates the commandments in the scriptures that the Jews use and also associates my work here to save lives and free those captive to mind-altering drugs that they take in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. The author uses the term, "saving souls" and what a "soul" is, is not defined by the author. The word "soul" has a particular biblical meaning that those ignorant of Judaism could be mislead about without the word being defined here by the author. But whatever the author had in mind, he/she says that it is {Lou's burden}. Then the author connects that with {a treacherous form of slavery imposed by God Himself}. That could be seen by a subset of readers as an observation, but the conclusion is jumped to because it is a false statement that I have a burden and lead readers to think of the God that the Jews give service and worship to is a liar and can not be trusted. That could lead a subset of readers to feel put down when they read such as it is an insult to the God that the Jews, and others, give service and worship to. It is not an impossibility for one to post an insult to a person or the God that they give service and worship to. Your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or jump to a conclusion about someone. I see no immunity here to allow what a subset of Jewish readers could feel as being ridiculed for being a Jew and feel put down when they read the statement in question, be it with or without the word, "seemingly", which in this context could mean for all intents and purposes.
You also wrote,[...you have a point there...].
It is plainly visible that by the author using the word, "imposed" by God, there is more to this as he/she is using a form of ancient anti-Semitism sometimes called anti-Judaism or theological anti-Semitism. This was the first tactic used historically to foster anti-Semitic feelings in the historical record, around 300BCE. It was used by those in Egypt then by promulgating that when Moses gave the commandments that he received from God to the Israelites and then the Jews later became a religion 1000 years after the Exodus, the anti-Semitism that was spread to arouse hatred toward the Jews said that the Jews had a inferior life because that they kept the commandments. That became later as "slaves" to the Law of god that the Jews obeyed. That later became, "slaves" in the 17th century and even applied to other faiths that are Abrahamic. The concept of ridiculing those that keep the commandments is also the basis for much more in the history of anti-Semitism that I am prevented from posting here due to the prohibitions posted here by you to me.
But be it as it may be, you say that I have a point that you see. And others could see it also. And it is what can be seen that is what can lead someone to feel put down. I do not want a Jewish child that finds their way here via a search and is in depression and sees the statement standing so that the child could think that you are validating the insult to the God that the child gives service and worship to that the child could understand as the word "seemingly" could be seen as "for all intents and purposes", not what you think it could mean. Then there is the potential for that child to commit suicide by going deeper into depression after they read that a psychiatrist that says not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down and that a statement not sanctioned is not against his rules, could think that the psychiatrist is ratifying the insult to that God which could destroy the faith in God of that child resulting in suicide.
I say to you that as long as you leave the statement outstanding, there could be more of a chance for that type of situation to happen. You say that you take responsibility for what you post here, so if you want to leave the statement unsanctioned on the basis that you think that the word "seemingly" could immunize you from responsibility of the hypothetical child's suicide, then so be it and let us go on to the post in the link that I had just offered to you here and I will have clean hands in any deaths resulting from you allowing the statement to stand, for I have attempted stop you from fostering anti-Semitism here by allowing anti-Semitic statement to stand, which put down Jews.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 2:38:39
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-noeihmun » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 29, 2014, at 18:54:38
> In your thinking, the meaning of "seemingly" could be understood as "not actually" under a specific literary use when an impossibility is what is "seemingly". For instance, suppose one was watching the Olympics on television and the high-jump was what people were watching. And one high-jumper broke the record. Then the commentator said, "He seemingly could jump to the moon." That is an impossibility.
> But that is not the usage in the post in question, for what is "seemingly" is not an impossibility.I guess "seemingly" could also imply "maybe or maybe not", which does leave open the possibility of "maybe". OK, what if I address the 2nd part with something like:
> > Please don't imply that God may be treacherous. The idea on this board is to be supportive of religious faith.
And you'd decline to address the 1st part?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 31, 2014, at 10:01:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 2:38:39
> > In your thinking, the meaning of "seemingly" could be understood as "not actually" under a specific literary use when an impossibility is what is "seemingly". For instance, suppose one was watching the Olympics on television and the high-jump was what people were watching. And one high-jumper broke the record. Then the commentator said, "He seemingly could jump to the moon." That is an impossibility.
> > But that is not the usage in the post in question, for what is "seemingly" is not an impossibility.
>
> I guess "seemingly" could also imply "maybe or maybe not", which does leave open the possibility of "maybe". OK, what if I address the 2nd part with something like:
>
> > > Please don't imply that God may be treacherous. The idea on this board is to be supportive of religious faith.
>
> And you'd decline to address the 1st part?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,' The idea of posting a repudiation is to post what could show that the statement in question is nit conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and is not in accordance with your rule that says that. In this case, your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths comes into play.
Your repudiation is one that reasonably shows that.
The aspect of that the poster libels me in respect to the use of the phrase, {Lou's burden} is also involved in another one of your rules, to not jump to a conclusion about someone. The statement is false, for I do not consider keeping the commandments of God to be a burden and the statement outs me and Jews and those that keep the commandments in a false light as being enslaved by the commandments as the poster writes,[...a treacherous form of slavery imposed by God himself..].
I think that if you leave the statement to stand, that a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel against me, so I am asking that you include that the statement about me is also not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and also not inaccordance with your rule to not jump to a conclusion about someone.
Here is my way of posting a repudiation of both:
[...Please do not post what could put down those of other faiths or jump to a conclusion about someone. A subset of readers could see what you posted as jumping to a conclusion about Lou as having a burden in worshipping the God in question and that the use of "treacherous" could be an insult to the God in question...] Bob
But be it as it may be, you could choose your own posting of a repudiation and I would like to go to the next post that puts down Jews and can foster anti-Semitism as in the two bible passages that have anti-Semitic statements as in John 5 and Matthew 27. There is also the post in the link that I offered here recently for you to choose from.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2014, at 10:41:20
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2014, at 2:38:39
> > In your thinking, the meaning of "seemingly" could be understood as "not actually" under a specific literary use when an impossibility is what is "seemingly". For instance, suppose one was watching the Olympics on television and the high-jump was what people were watching. And one high-jumper broke the record. Then the commentator said, "He seemingly could jump to the moon." That is an impossibility.
> > But that is not the usage in the post in question, for what is "seemingly" is not an impossibility.
>
> I guess "seemingly" could also imply "maybe or maybe not", which does leave open the possibility of "maybe". OK, what if I address the 2nd part with something like:
>
> > > Please don't imply that God may be treacherous. The idea on this board is to be supportive of religious faith.
>
> And you'd decline to address the 1st part?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that the idea of the faith board is to be supportive of religious faith.
But it is much more than that. For your rules for the faith board state:
[...please do not pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs...].
Hatred toward the Jews and others can be fostered here by you and your deputies of record simply by not following your own rules in relation to Judaism that can foster anti-Semitic feelings and also foster anti-Judaism that a subset of readers could think by the nature that you state that unsanctioned posts could mean that what is in the posts are not against your rules and then they are supportive because you also state that being supportive takes precedence.
Now let us look at this post that I am asking that you post a repudiation to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
There we have what could be thought by a subset of readers as me being pressured by the poster to adopt another faith. And also a subset of readers could think that Judaism is being put down, and that I am being put down for being a Jew, as Judaism is unable to grant a Jew to be saved, for the poster states to save myself first by converting to Christianity.
And it is much worse than that IMHHHHO. For you see, a subset of readers could think that the poster is in concert with your to defame Judaism and foster hatred toward the Jews here by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be fostered here, as being supportive because they are unsanctioned. And the subject line reads....Convert-Lou Pilder. And even more, I am prevented from responding to the poster in the manner that I need because of the prohibitions posted here to me by you.
I am asking that you post a repudiation to the post in question here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2014, at 1:21:37
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gauxdnmo » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 31, 2014, at 10:01:42
> Your repudiation is one that reasonably shows that.
Great, thanks.
> The aspect of that the poster libels me in respect to the use of the phrase, {Lou's burden} is also involved in another one of your rules, to not jump to a conclusion about someone. The statement is false
> I think that if you leave the statement to stand, that a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel against meI think that's even more true if you let the statement stand, but it's your decision. I'll repudiate the second part, and we'll move on?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 2, 2014, at 7:26:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2014, at 1:21:37
> > Your repudiation is one that reasonably shows that.
>
> Great, thanks.
>
> > The aspect of that the poster libels me in respect to the use of the phrase, {Lou's burden} is also involved in another one of your rules, to not jump to a conclusion about someone. The statement is false
> > I think that if you leave the statement to stand, that a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel against me
>
> I think that's even more true if you let the statement stand, but it's your decision. I'll repudiate the second part, and we'll move on?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The aspect of that you want me to post a repudiation to the first part is something that I do not think is my responsibility to do. And your rules could cover that it is you or your deputies that have the function of repudiating a statement that could put down or accuse another or jump to a conclusion about someone. You state that your procedure to follow is to use your notification procedure to point out statements that put down and/or accuse another. But then you state here that you will honor your policy but you give yourself the option of not honoring your policy when it comes to posts by me that are requests, which could be notifications, so that in your posting, it may be good for others to see that you do not have to respond to me. I do not think that by you saying that you will honor your own policy to others, but give yourself the option to honor your own policy in regards to my requests to you, any immunity from following your own rules in regards to the statement here that libels me as a knowingly false statement that decreasing the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me as being what could be seen by a subset of readers as being ridiculed for being a Jew here. That type of statement goes beyond the intent of the forum's purpose and could encourage third-party postings for further anti-Semitic statements to be posted.
The fact that you are unwilling to post a repudiation to the statement against me here could enable and encourage others to post hatred toward me and other statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling and foster anti-Semitism here. The fact that you sanction other statements that put down other members shows that it is possible for a subset of readers to think that you are not neutral in respect to sanctioning anti-Semitism so that a subset of readers IMHO could think that you are being oppressive or malicious in respect to your moderating of this site in respect to libelous statements where I am the subject person or Jews are the subject people. If others could see your conduct as not neutral, they could think that you are ratifying the libel and/or anti-Semitism which if I was to post my own repudiation, could not annul the fact that you are leaving the statement to stand, thus creating a further contributing of the objectionable content as a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating the hate.
You want to go on and so do I because as long as these statements that put down Jews can be seen as being validated by you and your deputies of record because they remain unsanctioned, there could be IMHO deaths and murders in diverse places because this site goes to many jurisdictions. And the humiliation that can be seen in these posts in question to the Jews and others, could cause depression in regards to a subset of Jewish children could think that you and your deputies of record, and the members that could be seen as being in concert with you to allow ridicule and debasement and stereotyping of Jews and me as a Jew here, to be what will be good for this community as a whole by you, for you say that readers are to try to trust you in that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole. I do not thinks that you allowing hatred toward the Jews to stand here to be what could be good for this community as a whole and I consider it your responsibility to post a repudiation to all anti-Semitism that can be seen here that you have allowed, not me, so I consider it your responsibility to undo it.
But if you do not want to repudiate both parts, then go ahead and post what you want. Then we could go on with the offered links here concerning anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand by you and your deputies of record and statements that libel me and put me down that as a Jew can be seen as a disregard for your rules to not put down someone.
Lou Pilder
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.