![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 33. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by 10derheart on March 23, 2014, at 22:00:31
nm
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2014, at 6:24:42
In reply to Thank you Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on March 23, 2014, at 22:00:31
> nm
10,
You wrote,[...Thank you Dr. Bob...].
I am unsure as to what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for. Since what you are thanking him for is not specified, a subset of readers could speculate to arrive at that you are thanking him for what is plainly visible here. What is plainly visible here is that I am in discussion with Mr. Hsiung concerning that there are anti-Semitic statements here that are allowed to stand that a subset of readers could think that what it purports is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, is supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that Mr. Hsiung's TOS states that he does not wait to sanction a statement that could put down those of other faiths because one match could start a forest fire, and posters are to be civil at all times, and if any conflict arises being supportive takes precedence, and to not post anything that could be disrespectful to other faiths. The statement being allowed to stand in discussion now is:
[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...].
The statement insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The tragic consequences that could result from readers thinking that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then are validating the hatred that is in the historical record that came from propaganda against Jews and the others depicted in the statement, could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings against Jews and the others and lead a subset of readers to think that this site's administration is anti-Semitic on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states in his TOS for readers to try and trust him in what he does in his thinking because it will be good for this community as a whole as he claims. The anti-Semitic statement in question, is only one statement in a continuous body of evidence showing that the administration has left anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states that if a statement I not sanctioned, it is not against his rules here.
Now his justification for leaving the statement in question to be seen as civil, is that if he sanctions the anti-Semitic statement now in question, the poster of such could feel bad. Is that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2014, at 6:51:04
In reply to Thank you Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on March 23, 2014, at 22:00:31
> nm
10,
You wrote,[...Thank you Dr. Bob...].
Now again, what you are thanking him for is not specified. And then a subset of readers could think that you are thanking him for what can be seen plainly here. And what can be seen is that Mr. Hsiung has posted that he is laughing out loud at Scott by seeing that he has allowed another poster to call Scott a pr*ck.
As to Mr. Hsiung posting that he is sorry, that does not IMHHHHHO erase the tragic consequences that could happen to anyone that has themselves being libeled by a psychiatrist that says that he knows of the tragic emotional consequences that could be inflicted upon someone when they are held out and publically ridiculed by an owner of a mental-health web site. And worse, a subset of readers could think that Mr. Hsiung wants the debasement of Scott indicated by the presence of the ridicule , to continue on the basis that he has not sanctioned what the poster wrote about Scott that is plainly visible that is against his own rules here. Since the poster that Mr Hsiung asks to post an apology has not done so, the libel against Scott could be seen by a subset of readers as it will be good for this community as a whole, civil and supportive.
The intent of Mr. Hsiung could be seen by a subset of readers as to what it is . It is what it is. Scott could suffer immense psychological distress from seeing himself debased as being allowed to be called a pr*ck by a member, and then Mr. Hsiung posting that he is laughing when he sees the libel toward Scott. He says it is funny because a pr*ck is less than troll.
When Mr. Hsiung laughs at a member here for being called a pr*ck, a subset of readers could think that he is debasing humanity, for those readers could think that no human being could be allowed to be degraded in that manner publicly by a psychiatrist laughing at it, which I consider laughing at me.
It that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2014, at 9:55:08
In reply to Lou's request- Thank you Dr. Bob-lafgatme » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2014, at 6:51:04
Lou not to be unkind or unfeeling but why does l0derHeart saying thank-you to Dr Bob matter to you. I don't see your name mentioned. A thank-you is directed to the person being thanked not anyone else me included. Sorry 10derHeart for even replying on your thank-you post to Dr Bob. Phillipa
Posted by Willful on March 24, 2014, at 9:58:13
In reply to Lou's request-Thank you Dr. Bob-pheelbahd, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2014, at 6:24:42
Hi Lou,
I think you may be mistaking what 10der is thanking Bob for. She is more likely thanking him for statements he made in conversations that she has expressed concern about, or on issues in which she has written herself. People tend to be more involved in topics where they are actively engaged.It is possible that 10der has noticed your conversation with Bob and has decided that she is no longer so concerned about, since he is taking it on himself to make judgments about the objections you raise.
These issues are much more likely to be about why Bob changed some of his approaches to santioning posters, than about anything related to anti-semitism. All the former monitors are much more disturbed and involved with that issue than with others.
I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2014, at 2:40:07
In reply to Thank you Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on March 23, 2014, at 22:00:31
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 11:56:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request-Thank you Dr. Bob-pheelbahd, posted by Willful on March 24, 2014, at 9:58:13
> Hi Lou,
>
>
> I think you may be mistaking what 10der is thanking Bob for. She is more likely thanking him for statements he made in conversations that she has expressed concern about, or on issues in which she has written herself. People tend to be more involved in topics where they are actively engaged.
>
> It is possible that 10der has noticed your conversation with Bob and has decided that she is no longer so concerned about, since he is taking it on himself to make judgments about the objections you raise.
>
> These issues are much more likely to be about why Bob changed some of his approaches to santioning posters, than about anything related to anti-semitism. All the former monitors are much more disturbed and involved with that issue than with others.
>
> I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns.W,
You wrote,[...she is more likely...it is possible...these issues are much more likely to be...than about anything related to anti-Semitism. All the former monitors are much more disturbed and involved with that issue than with others. I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. You know what 10_d_h I thanking Mr. Hsiung for.
B. You conclude that 10_d_h has never been actively engaged with me here.
C. You know for a fact that Mr. Hsiung is taking it on himself to make judgments about the objections that you, Lou, raise.
D. You know for a fact that Mr. Hsiung changed his approach to sanctioning posters and that is why the anti-Semitic statement, {No non-Christian can enter heaven} is allowed to stand.
E. You agree with Mr. Hsiung for the anti-Semitic statement to stand and go un repudiated by Hsiung that it will be good for this community as a whole for Mr. Hsiung to allow the anti-Semitic statement in question here to stand because his rationale that the author of the hate could feel too bad if the anti-Semitic statement was to have a repudiation posted to it that the posting of anything that could be disrespectful to another's faith is not supportive here, is much more important to this community than for Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian to feel defamed.
F. You agree with Mr. Hsiung that his rationale for allowing the statement to be seen here as civil, could arouse anti-Semitic feelings in a subset of readers.
G. You agree with Mr. Hsiung that it is OK with him to allow the statement to stand because since one match could start forest fire, and being supportive takes precedence here, that the fire of hatred toward the Jews and the others that could come from the spark in the statement in question is supportive by you also.
Fill in:
P. If 10_d_h was a deputy of record when the statement was seen published, can she be an accessory to the fact that the antisemitic statement is unsanctioned and is not responsible for any injuries or deaths that could arise out of someone reading the post and seeing that it could be considered to be by a subset of readers what the owner and his deputies wants to promulgate here by the nature that since the antisenitic statement is un repudiated, it will be good for this community as a whole by the nature that if something is allowed to stand, it is not against the rules according to Mr. Hsiung?
If you think not, then coukd you post here your reason for that?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Lou
Posted by Willful on March 25, 2014, at 12:30:28
In reply to Lou's request-Lou's reply-kumplsid » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 11:56:04
Hi Lou
A I do not know what 10der was thanking Bob for; I merely am applying logic to the question
B I conclude that 10der has not recently been engaged with you in your discussion with Bob
C I know for a fact that Bob is taking it on himself to make judgments, as it is plainly visible
D I know that Bob says that he has changed his view on sanctioning, but I have no opinion as to how that effects his stance on sanctioning alleged anti-semitic statements
E I agree that the anti-semitic statement does not need to be sanctioned, however I don't agree with your full statement of Bob's reasons-- ie I am not sure that you state these fully, or accurately
F I do not agree that the Bob's statement of his rationale could excite anti-semitic feelings in a subset of readers
G I do not believe that one match will start a forest fire. I believe there must be a number of matches, or that the matches much be very powerful matches of a type I don't see here
P I do not think 10der is an accessory, because as a deputy, she did not have final authority; she alerted Bob to possible incivility, but she did not bear any ultimate reponsibility for his judgment -- but the rule was that anyone had the right to alert Bob to possible incivility-- so if she bears responsibility, then all posters do, including you, since you continue to participate in this community.If I found the refusal to sanction the incivilty threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews, from a subset of readers, then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews. I would go to the leaders of Jewish organizations and alert them to this danger; and I would at most monitor the site for any signs that such danger was becoming more immediate.
However, I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said he will not ban. I would take that as definitive and act accordingly elsewhere.
I would leave 10nder out of it as she is not able to remove the posts, and did not in the first instance, or later instances, make the judgment to allow them to stand.
However, Lou, that is what I would do. Apparently, you believe that this site can be improved and that Bob will possibly eventually take the steps to protect Jews that you propose. I wish you good luck on your quest.
Posted by 10derheart on March 25, 2014, at 15:23:06
In reply to Thank you Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on March 23, 2014, at 22:00:31
I didn't think anyone would give a hoot. Obviously, that was off a bit. I guess I could have done it by B-mail...it was just impulsive.
I was thanking Dr. Bob for removing manic666's posts on several boards over the weekend (he is blocked). That's all.
Lou, your speculations are...so "Lou." (and no...I won't answer questions about that or explain further)
Phillipa - No worries.
Willful - Thoughtful and interesting as usual :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 15:24:08
In reply to Re: Lou's request-Lou's reply-kumplsid, posted by Willful on March 25, 2014, at 12:30:28
> Hi Lou
>
> A I do not know what 10der was thanking Bob for; I merely am applying logic to the question
> B I conclude that 10der has not recently been engaged with you in your discussion with Bob
> C I know for a fact that Bob is taking it on himself to make judgments, as it is plainly visible
> D I know that Bob says that he has changed his view on sanctioning, but I have no opinion as to how that effects his stance on sanctioning alleged anti-semitic statements
> E I agree that the anti-semitic statement does not need to be sanctioned, however I don't agree with your full statement of Bob's reasons-- ie I am not sure that you state these fully, or accurately
> F I do not agree that the Bob's statement of his rationale could excite anti-semitic feelings in a subset of readers
> G I do not believe that one match will start a forest fire. I believe there must be a number of matches, or that the matches much be very powerful matches of a type I don't see here
>
>
> P I do not think 10der is an accessory, because as a deputy, she did not have final authority; she alerted Bob to possible incivility, but she did not bear any ultimate reponsibility for his judgment -- but the rule was that anyone had the right to alert Bob to possible incivility-- so if she bears responsibility, then all posters do, including you, since you continue to participate in this community.
>
>
>
> If I found the refusal to sanction the incivilty threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews, from a subset of readers, then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews. I would go to the leaders of Jewish organizations and alert them to this danger; and I would at most monitor the site for any signs that such danger was becoming more immediate.
>
> However, I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said he will not ban. I would take that as definitive and act accordingly elsewhere.
>
> I would leave 10nder out of it as she is not able to remove the posts, and did not in the first instance, or later instances, make the judgment to allow them to stand.
>
> However, Lou, that is what I would do. Apparently, you believe that this site can be improved and that Bob will possibly eventually take the steps to protect Jews that you propose. I wish you good luck on your quest.
>Willful,
You wrote,[...If I found the refusal to sanction the incivility threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews..then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews...].
Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here by saying what is or is not supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. That can foster anti-Semitism if a subset of readers see that anti-Semitic statements can be seen as civil, which means that the statement is un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung or his deputies. I am prevented from posting what IMHHHHO could overcome the anti-Semitism that is in the statements in the discussion here with Mr. Hsiung due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And another prohibition prevents me from posting here discussion with others via email, including Mr. Hsiung and his deputies.
But let us look at this article as some basis for discussion concerning what you have posted here.
Lou
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26151425
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 16:45:05
In reply to Lou's reply-edu/phozdr » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 15:24:08
> > Hi Lou
> >
> > A I do not know what 10der was thanking Bob for; I merely am applying logic to the question
> > B I conclude that 10der has not recently been engaged with you in your discussion with Bob
> > C I know for a fact that Bob is taking it on himself to make judgments, as it is plainly visible
> > D I know that Bob says that he has changed his view on sanctioning, but I have no opinion as to how that effects his stance on sanctioning alleged anti-semitic statements
> > E I agree that the anti-semitic statement does not need to be sanctioned, however I don't agree with your full statement of Bob's reasons-- ie I am not sure that you state these fully, or accurately
> > F I do not agree that the Bob's statement of his rationale could excite anti-semitic feelings in a subset of readers
> > G I do not believe that one match will start a forest fire. I believe there must be a number of matches, or that the matches much be very powerful matches of a type I don't see here
> >
> >
> > P I do not think 10der is an accessory, because as a deputy, she did not have final authority; she alerted Bob to possible incivility, but she did not bear any ultimate reponsibility for his judgment -- but the rule was that anyone had the right to alert Bob to possible incivility-- so if she bears responsibility, then all posters do, including you, since you continue to participate in this community.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I found the refusal to sanction the incivilty threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews, from a subset of readers, then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews. I would go to the leaders of Jewish organizations and alert them to this danger; and I would at most monitor the site for any signs that such danger was becoming more immediate.
> >
> > However, I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said he will not ban. I would take that as definitive and act accordingly elsewhere.
> >
> > I would leave 10nder out of it as she is not able to remove the posts, and did not in the first instance, or later instances, make the judgment to allow them to stand.
> >
> > However, Lou, that is what I would do. Apparently, you believe that this site can be improved and that Bob will possibly eventually take the steps to protect Jews that you propose. I wish you good luck on your quest.
> >
>
> Willful,
> You wrote,[...If I found the refusal to sanction the incivility threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews..then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews...].
> Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here by saying what is or is not supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. That can foster anti-Semitism if a subset of readers see that anti-Semitic statements can be seen as civil, which means that the statement is un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung or his deputies. I am prevented from posting what IMHHHHO could overcome the anti-Semitism that is in the statements in the discussion here with Mr. Hsiung due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And another prohibition prevents me from posting here discussion with others via email, including Mr. Hsiung and his deputies.
> But let us look at this article as some basis for discussion concerning what you have posted here.
> Lou
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26151425
Willful,
Now let's look at this post which stands today un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then. Readers could think that the anti-Semitism in the post is civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But it is much more than that.
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
B. Type in,[ admin, 428781 ]
look for the 428781 in the colored strip URL
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 19:44:37
In reply to Speculation and curiosity, posted by 10derheart on March 25, 2014, at 15:23:06
> I didn't think anyone would give a hoot. Obviously, that was off a bit. I guess I could have done it by B-mail...it was just impulsive.
>
> I was thanking Dr. Bob for removing manic666's posts on several boards over the weekend (he is blocked). That's all.
>
> Lou, your speculations are...so "Lou." (and no...I won't answer questions about that or explain further)
>
> Phillipa - No worries.
>
> Willful - Thoughtful and interesting as usual :-)Friends,
It is written here,[...no...I won't answer questions (about what so "Lou" could mean...].
Once again, I have to speculate as to what the poster is wanting readers to think about what is written. A question that I have in my mind is what is the intent of the author behind the statement.
My intent is to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions/addictions and suicides here and purge, in particular but not limited to, the antisemitic statements from the community.
Now IMHO the statement here could stigmatize me and decrease the respect and confidence in which I am held. This is because what {so Lou} could mean is not specified and then readers could speculate as to what it means. I could be subject to ridicule and be held up to public humiliation by a subset of readers as long as they have to speculate as to what the {so Lou} could mean.
But it is much more than that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 20:19:02
In reply to Lou's reply- 428781-phowldeyshunofantisemitism, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 16:45:05
> > > Hi Lou
> > >
> > > A I do not know what 10der was thanking Bob for; I merely am applying logic to the question
> > > B I conclude that 10der has not recently been engaged with you in your discussion with Bob
> > > C I know for a fact that Bob is taking it on himself to make judgments, as it is plainly visible
> > > D I know that Bob says that he has changed his view on sanctioning, but I have no opinion as to how that effects his stance on sanctioning alleged anti-semitic statements
> > > E I agree that the anti-semitic statement does not need to be sanctioned, however I don't agree with your full statement of Bob's reasons-- ie I am not sure that you state these fully, or accurately
> > > F I do not agree that the Bob's statement of his rationale could excite anti-semitic feelings in a subset of readers
> > > G I do not believe that one match will start a forest fire. I believe there must be a number of matches, or that the matches much be very powerful matches of a type I don't see here
> > >
> > >
> > > P I do not think 10der is an accessory, because as a deputy, she did not have final authority; she alerted Bob to possible incivility, but she did not bear any ultimate reponsibility for his judgment -- but the rule was that anyone had the right to alert Bob to possible incivility-- so if she bears responsibility, then all posters do, including you, since you continue to participate in this community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If I found the refusal to sanction the incivilty threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews, from a subset of readers, then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews. I would go to the leaders of Jewish organizations and alert them to this danger; and I would at most monitor the site for any signs that such danger was becoming more immediate.
> > >
> > > However, I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said he will not ban. I would take that as definitive and act accordingly elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I would leave 10nder out of it as she is not able to remove the posts, and did not in the first instance, or later instances, make the judgment to allow them to stand.
> > >
> > > However, Lou, that is what I would do. Apparently, you believe that this site can be improved and that Bob will possibly eventually take the steps to protect Jews that you propose. I wish you good luck on your quest.
> > >
> >
> > Willful,
> > You wrote,[...If I found the refusal to sanction the incivility threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews..then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews...].
> > Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here by saying what is or is not supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. That can foster anti-Semitism if a subset of readers see that anti-Semitic statements can be seen as civil, which means that the statement is un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung or his deputies. I am prevented from posting what IMHHHHO could overcome the anti-Semitism that is in the statements in the discussion here with Mr. Hsiung due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And another prohibition prevents me from posting here discussion with others via email, including Mr. Hsiung and his deputies.
> > But let us look at this article as some basis for discussion concerning what you have posted here.
> > Lou
> > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26151425
> Willful,
> Now let's look at this post which stands today un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then. Readers could think that the anti-Semitism in the post is civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But it is much more than that.
> To see this post:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
> B. Type in,[ admin, 428781 ]
> look for the 428781 in the colored strip URL
>
Willful
You wrote[..I agree that the anti-Semitic statement does not have to be sanctioned...]
That brings up some questions of mine. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Fill in:
A. The statement says[..No non-Christian can enter heaven..]. An anti-Semitic statement is one that insults Judaism. Mr. Hsiung uses the slang,{put down}. An anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews or could lead a Jew to feel put down. The rule here is not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths and not to post what could be disrespectful to other faiths and to be supportive.
What is your rationale for saying that you do not think the anti-Semitic statement should be sanctioned?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 20:49:40
In reply to Lou's reply- psouwannahleevit » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 20:19:02
> > > > Hi Lou
> > > >
> > > > A I do not know what 10der was thanking Bob for; I merely am applying logic to the question
> > > > B I conclude that 10der has not recently been engaged with you in your discussion with Bob
> > > > C I know for a fact that Bob is taking it on himself to make judgments, as it is plainly visible
> > > > D I know that Bob says that he has changed his view on sanctioning, but I have no opinion as to how that effects his stance on sanctioning alleged anti-semitic statements
> > > > E I agree that the anti-semitic statement does not need to be sanctioned, however I don't agree with your full statement of Bob's reasons-- ie I am not sure that you state these fully, or accurately
> > > > F I do not agree that the Bob's statement of his rationale could excite anti-semitic feelings in a subset of readers
> > > > G I do not believe that one match will start a forest fire. I believe there must be a number of matches, or that the matches much be very powerful matches of a type I don't see here
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > P I do not think 10der is an accessory, because as a deputy, she did not have final authority; she alerted Bob to possible incivility, but she did not bear any ultimate reponsibility for his judgment -- but the rule was that anyone had the right to alert Bob to possible incivility-- so if she bears responsibility, then all posters do, including you, since you continue to participate in this community.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I found the refusal to sanction the incivilty threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews, from a subset of readers, then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews. I would go to the leaders of Jewish organizations and alert them to this danger; and I would at most monitor the site for any signs that such danger was becoming more immediate.
> > > >
> > > > However, I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said he will not ban. I would take that as definitive and act accordingly elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > I would leave 10nder out of it as she is not able to remove the posts, and did not in the first instance, or later instances, make the judgment to allow them to stand.
> > > >
> > > > However, Lou, that is what I would do. Apparently, you believe that this site can be improved and that Bob will possibly eventually take the steps to protect Jews that you propose. I wish you good luck on your quest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Willful,
> > > You wrote,[...If I found the refusal to sanction the incivility threatened to cause injuries and death to Jews..then I would leave this site immediately, and set about planning how to protect Jews...].
> > > Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here by saying what is or is not supportive and what will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. That can foster anti-Semitism if a subset of readers see that anti-Semitic statements can be seen as civil, which means that the statement is un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung or his deputies. I am prevented from posting what IMHHHHO could overcome the anti-Semitism that is in the statements in the discussion here with Mr. Hsiung due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And another prohibition prevents me from posting here discussion with others via email, including Mr. Hsiung and his deputies.
> > > But let us look at this article as some basis for discussion concerning what you have posted here.
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26151425
> > Willful,
> > Now let's look at this post which stands today un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then. Readers could think that the anti-Semitism in the post is civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But it is much more than that.
> > To see this post:
> > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
> > B. Type in,[ admin, 428781 ]
> > look for the 428781 in the colored strip URL
> >
> Willful
> You wrote[..I agree that the anti-Semitic statement does not have to be sanctioned...]
> That brings up some questions of mine. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Fill in:
> A. The statement says[..No non-Christian can enter heaven..]. An anti-Semitic statement is one that insults Judaism. Mr. Hsiung uses the slang,{put down}. An anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews or could lead a Jew to feel put down. The rule here is not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths and not to post what could be disrespectful to other faiths and to be supportive.
> What is your rationale for saying that you do not think the anti-Semitic statement should be sanctioned?
> _________________________________________
>
> ___________________________________________
> Lou
>
Willful,
You wrote,[...I would consider it a waste of time and energy to debate or dispute with Bob about banning posts that he has said that he will not ban..]
Let us look at this post:
go to the search box here and type in:
[admin, 1050578 ]
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on March 26, 2014, at 1:18:46
In reply to Lou's response-psolu » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2014, at 19:44:37
>>Once again, I have to speculate...
You have to? Why?
>>...then readers could speculate...Or they couldn't. Speculation sure seems popular, even mandatory, in some cases.
Done.
Posted by Fayeroe on March 30, 2014, at 17:28:11
In reply to Lou's request-Thank you Dr. Bob-pheelbahd, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2014, at 6:24:42
> > nm
>
> 10,
> You wrote,[...Thank you Dr. Bob...].
> I am unsure as to what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for. Since what you are thanking him for is not specified, a subset of readers could speculate to arrive at that you are thanking him for what is plainly visible here. What is plainly visible here is that I am in discussion with Mr. Hsiung concerning that there are anti-Semitic statements here that are allowed to stand that a subset of readers could think that what it purports is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, is supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that Mr. Hsiung's TOS states that he does not wait to sanction a statement that could put down those of other faiths because one match could start a forest fire, and posters are to be civil at all times, and if any conflict arises being supportive takes precedence, and to not post anything that could be disrespectful to other faiths. The statement being allowed to stand in discussion now is:
> [...No non-Christian can enter heaven...].
> The statement insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The tragic consequences that could result from readers thinking that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then are validating the hatred that is in the historical record that came from propaganda against Jews and the others depicted in the statement, could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings against Jews and the others and lead a subset of readers to think that this site's administration is anti-Semitic on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states in his TOS for readers to try and trust him in what he does in his thinking because it will be good for this community as a whole as he claims. The anti-Semitic statement in question, is only one statement in a continuous body of evidence showing that the administration has left anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states that if a statement I not sanctioned, it is not against his rules here.
> Now his justification for leaving the statement in question to be seen as civil, is that if he sanctions the anti-Semitic statement now in question, the poster of such could feel bad. Is that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
> Lou"Is that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
Lou"I'm almost speechless, Lou, but I have enough in me to call you an insensitive bigoted idiot. And as always I will not respond if you post to me. Maybe I'll get blocked for offending the offensive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2014, at 21:08:28
In reply to Re: Lou's request-Thank you Dr. Bob-pheelbahd, posted by Fayeroe on March 30, 2014, at 17:28:11
> > > nm
> >
> > 10,
> > You wrote,[...Thank you Dr. Bob...].
> > I am unsure as to what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for. Since what you are thanking him for is not specified, a subset of readers could speculate to arrive at that you are thanking him for what is plainly visible here. What is plainly visible here is that I am in discussion with Mr. Hsiung concerning that there are anti-Semitic statements here that are allowed to stand that a subset of readers could think that what it purports is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, is supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that Mr. Hsiung's TOS states that he does not wait to sanction a statement that could put down those of other faiths because one match could start a forest fire, and posters are to be civil at all times, and if any conflict arises being supportive takes precedence, and to not post anything that could be disrespectful to other faiths. The statement being allowed to stand in discussion now is:
> > [...No non-Christian can enter heaven...].
> > The statement insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The tragic consequences that could result from readers thinking that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record then are validating the hatred that is in the historical record that came from propaganda against Jews and the others depicted in the statement, could induce hostile and disagreeable feelings against Jews and the others and lead a subset of readers to think that this site's administration is anti-Semitic on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states in his TOS for readers to try and trust him in what he does in his thinking because it will be good for this community as a whole as he claims. The anti-Semitic statement in question, is only one statement in a continuous body of evidence showing that the administration has left anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states that if a statement I not sanctioned, it is not against his rules here.
> > Now his justification for leaving the statement in question to be seen as civil, is that if he sanctions the anti-Semitic statement now in question, the poster of such could feel bad. Is that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
> > Lou
>
> "Is that what you are thanking Mr. Hsiung for?
> Lou"
>
> I'm almost speechless, Lou, but I have enough in me to call you an insensitive bigoted idiot. And as always I will not respond if you post to me. Maybe I'll get blocked for offending the offensive.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...I have enough in me to call you an ***...].
It is no great honor when I have to respond to what a subset of readers could think is contempt posted against me here that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But it is much more than that. For my followers here can see what could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disparaging feelings against me. This could cause a subset of readers to discount what I say here. And I am trying to save lives here. Those readers could fall into the vortex of hate and depression and kill themselves by seeing the what is posted against me here standing as supportive and civil.
You see, the issue at hand now is the allowing of the statement that insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven by not being a Christian. The statement is:[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...] which a subset of readers could think is analogous to: [...only Christians can enter heaven...]. And you see, I know how that kind of statement as seen here as supportive and civil, could cause depression. And when a Jewish child comes here in depression and sees the statement allowed to be seen as civil, that could have them be drawn into the vortex of depression, not being able to come out of it, and kill themselves.
You see, this is common knowledge in psychology and books are written about it in regards to hate-crimes and the study of that and hate-speech. Some of the best books IMO were written after 1945
out of Yale University and now there are even better books of research that shows how hate-speech can cause depression and when one is in depression, how the hate-speech can push those in depression to commit suicide. And all of this is what I am trying to stop here.
But I an alone here, naturally. Who has believed my report? The statement here against me could show that I am despised and rejected. And many could die because there were scoffers in these days that spew out the fuel to stoke any furnace of hate outside this forum. For as one match could start a forest fire, a match that has fuel next to it could cause the fire to spread quickly. And the embers could land way outside this forum, but the origin of the fire of hate could be traced. Hear me, oh readers. Take this opportunity to fight the fire. Take this opportunity to shut off the furnace of hate. Take this opportunity to make a difference.
Here is a link to an abstract concerning a book that goes into a little of what I am talking about in relation to the statement, [...no non-Christian can enter heaven...] and how that statement being seen here as supportive , could cause someone to kill themselves.
Lou
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/5/427.abstract
Lou
Posted by Willful on March 31, 2014, at 17:43:18
In reply to Lou's response-moarhey » Fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on March 30, 2014, at 21:08:28
Just in case it would be a consolation, Lou, I'd like to assure you that I see virtually no possibility that any subset of readers will think less of you based on what anyone says to or about you.
There is much of what you have written, which reveals your goals and your turn of mind-- much too much for anyone to base their opinion on what any other individual has said about you. When so much direct evidence exists-- people go to the source-- ie what you have written. They come to their own conclusions-- and make their judgments based on what you have written.
I also think there is absolutely no one who will possibly commit suicide or be driven to any sort of desperation, deeper depression or suicidal despair based on what is said about you here. People commit suicide because of hopelessness about their own lives and a sense of pain and purposelessness. I am quite sure that no one will be so affected by what is said to or about you, and what is let stand, and what therefore could be taken as positive for the community, about you. That just isn't the kind of thing that affects anyone so deeply, as to cause them to kill themselves.
I'm sorry if you don't understand this clearly and torture yourself about the possible ramifications here. But while you may find these things unpleasant, others will act self destructively only if their are powerful forces in their own lives, that impel them.
I hope you can take some comfort in that. It may be hurtful to you, and I"m sorry if it is, but you can put your mind to rest about how destrructive it is to others.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2014, at 21:13:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response-moarhey, posted by Willful on March 31, 2014, at 17:43:18
> Just in case it would be a consolation, Lou, I'd like to assure you that I see virtually no possibility that any subset of readers will think less of you based on what anyone says to or about you.
>
> There is much of what you have written, which reveals your goals and your turn of mind-- much too much for anyone to base their opinion on what any other individual has said about you. When so much direct evidence exists-- people go to the source-- ie what you have written. They come to their own conclusions-- and make their judgments based on what you have written.
>
> I also think there is absolutely no one who will possibly commit suicide or be driven to any sort of desperation, deeper depression or suicidal despair based on what is said about you here. People commit suicide because of hopelessness about their own lives and a sense of pain and purposelessness. I am quite sure that no one will be so affected by what is said to or about you, and what is let stand, and what therefore could be taken as positive for the community, about you. That just isn't the kind of thing that affects anyone so deeply, as to cause them to kill themselves.
>
> I'm sorry if you don't understand this clearly and torture yourself about the possible ramifications here. But while you may find these things unpleasant, others will act self destructively only if their are powerful forces in their own lives, that impel them.
>
> I hope you can take some comfort in that. It may be hurtful to you, and I"m sorry if it is, but you can put your mind to rest about how destrructive it is to others.W,
You wrote,[...I see virtually no possibility that any subset of readers will think less of you based on what anyone says to or about you...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. A poster is immune from liability if they call another "bigoted."
B. Psychologists have published research that shows that people that are called bigoted, can not have any harm inflicted upon their reputation.
C. Psychologists have published research that shows that a person called a bigot, or bigoted, could never have emotional distress inflicted upon them by that.
D. Calling someone bigoted in this forum can not lead the targeted person to feel put down or accused.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2014, at 21:39:02
In reply to Lou's request-lybulpursehy » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2014, at 21:13:22
> > Just in case it would be a consolation, Lou, I'd like to assure you that I see virtually no possibility that any subset of readers will think less of you based on what anyone says to or about you.
> >
> > There is much of what you have written, which reveals your goals and your turn of mind-- much too much for anyone to base their opinion on what any other individual has said about you. When so much direct evidence exists-- people go to the source-- ie what you have written. They come to their own conclusions-- and make their judgments based on what you have written.
> >
> > I also think there is absolutely no one who will possibly commit suicide or be driven to any sort of desperation, deeper depression or suicidal despair based on what is said about you here. People commit suicide because of hopelessness about their own lives and a sense of pain and purposelessness. I am quite sure that no one will be so affected by what is said to or about you, and what is let stand, and what therefore could be taken as positive for the community, about you. That just isn't the kind of thing that affects anyone so deeply, as to cause them to kill themselves.
> >
> > I'm sorry if you don't understand this clearly and torture yourself about the possible ramifications here. But while you may find these things unpleasant, others will act self destructively only if their are powerful forces in their own lives, that impel them.
> >
> > I hope you can take some comfort in that. It may be hurtful to you, and I"m sorry if it is, but you can put your mind to rest about how destrructive it is to others.
>
> W,
> You wrote,[...I see virtually no possibility that any subset of readers will think less of you based on what anyone says to or about you...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> True or false:
> A. A poster is immune from liability if they call another "bigoted."
> B. Psychologists have published research that shows that people that are called bigoted, can not have any harm inflicted upon their reputation.
> C. Psychologists have published research that shows that a person called a bigot, or bigoted, could never have emotional distress inflicted upon them by that.
> D. Calling someone bigoted in this forum can not lead the targeted person to feel put down or accused.
> Lou
>
Willful,
You wrote;
[...what you have written..reveals your goals...(readers) make their judgments based upon what you have written...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
P. My goals are to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions/addiction and to purge the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here.
Q. The poster of the name calling against me here in discussion, based those names on what my goals are.
R. There is something that I have written that justifies all of the names that I am called here
S. The anti-Semitic statement, [...No non-Christian can enter heaven...] being allowed to be seen as supportive here, shows a sensitivity to Jewish readers.
Lou
Posted by Willful on April 5, 2014, at 12:51:05
In reply to Lou's request-ehysenzuhtvity, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2014, at 21:39:02
Hi Lou
My sense is that your goals are:
1. to persuade people that psychopharmacological treatments (drugs) are dangerous and possibly fatal to the person taking them, both from their chemical form and their effects when taken;
I believe that you believe also that these drugs are a work of evil and have said that people who taken them will end up in a "lake of fire"-- I assume in an afterlife as punishment for taking these drugs during their lifetimes.
I think you are trying to save people from these dangers.
2 You also have the goal of having statements that you judge to be anti-semitic sanctioned in some way so that they will not stand.
3. The poster who called you "bigoted" had some reason in their mind fir saying this. .-- I am not aware that someone did, or when someone did this-- . Therefore, because I don't know the circumstances in which this name-calling occurred, I can't comment on the other person's motivation.
4. There is something that you have written that has offended someone or caused her/him to think you are bigoted. This does not mean the person is correct, only that something that you did probbly did evoke this.
5. The statement "no Non-Christian can enter heaven" is a conventional view of many Christian denominations. It is in my view totally incorrect-- and many contemporary Christians do not subscribe to this view. Some however do.
So no-- it is not sensitive to Jewish readers.
But I also hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss such statements, even if they also may rightfully argue against them. I believe Jewish readers defeat such statements by showing that they were historic mistakes.
In a context in which there is no threat to Jews, these statements should be ignored, not given more attention-- because attention only spreads them further and gives them more power.
So I would personally try to make such statements irrelevent, not to focus on them, which makes those who believe them defend them more.
~~~
I hope this helps give you my perspective.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2014, at 16:46:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ehysenzuhtvity, posted by Willful on April 5, 2014, at 12:51:05
> Hi Lou
>
> My sense is that your goals are:
>
> 1. to persuade people that psychopharmacological treatments (drugs) are dangerous and possibly fatal to the person taking them, both from their chemical form and their effects when taken;
>
> I believe that you believe also that these drugs are a work of evil and have said that people who taken them will end up in a "lake of fire"-- I assume in an afterlife as punishment for taking these drugs during their lifetimes.
>
> I think you are trying to save people from these dangers.
>
> 2 You also have the goal of having statements that you judge to be anti-semitic sanctioned in some way so that they will not stand.
>
> 3. The poster who called you "bigoted" had some reason in their mind fir saying this. .-- I am not aware that someone did, or when someone did this-- . Therefore, because I don't know the circumstances in which this name-calling occurred, I can't comment on the other person's motivation.
>
> 4. There is something that you have written that has offended someone or caused her/him to think you are bigoted. This does not mean the person is correct, only that something that you did probbly did evoke this.
>
> 5. The statement "no Non-Christian can enter heaven" is a conventional view of many Christian denominations. It is in my view totally incorrect-- and many contemporary Christians do not subscribe to this view. Some however do.
>
> So no-- it is not sensitive to Jewish readers.
>
> But I also hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss such statements, even if they also may rightfully argue against them. I believe Jewish readers defeat such statements by showing that they were historic mistakes.
>
> In a context in which there is no threat to Jews, these statements should be ignored, not given more attention-- because attention only spreads them further and gives them more power.
>
> So I would personally try to make such statements irrelevent, not to focus on them, which makes those who believe them defend them more.
>
> ~~~
>
> I hope this helps give you my perspective.
>Willful,
You wrote that you hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss such statements, (as,... no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
There could be a subset of Jewish readers that could feel put down when they read it here because Mr. Hsiung states that statements that are un repudiated by him or his deputies are statements that are not against his rules. And Mr. Hsiung also states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. And he also states that being supportive takes precedence so that readers could think that the statement in question is supportive. Mr. Hsiung also states to not post what could be insensitive or disrespectful to another's religion. To say that no non-Christian can enter heaven, a subset of readers could think that is analogous to Jews can not enter heaven.
Then there could be vulnerable Jewish readers and other readers that are depicted in the statement that could feel immense hurt and go into a deeper depression that they are already in because they could feel ridiculed because the forum's administration allows the statement to be seen as supportive since it stands un repudiated. And they could see my efforts to purge the statement and the resistance to my efforts which IMHHHO could reinforce the hurt feelings that these readers could have when they read, [...no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
This could lead Jewish and other readers depicted in the statement to feel devalued as guests here, thinking that the administration of the forum is validating what the statement purports since it is not repudiated by them. And there could be Jewish and other readers depicted in the statement that can not overcome the power that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies have to control the content here and could think that as Jews and the others, think feelings of inferiority and be indoctrinated to think that Judaism is inferior to Christianity because the statement, no non-Christian can enter heaven, could be seen as being validated by a psychiatrist. That is more powerful of a persuasion than if, let's say, they see it on television stated by a Christian preacher.
The argument was used by some public schools before it was made illegal in the U.S., to try to convert Jewish students by saying that they should be taught strong enough at home to reject the pressure of the school authorities trying to convert them to Christianity. The courts ruled differently and IMHO for very good reason. The same argument that you hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss, IMHO is not valid on the grounds that I am prevented from posting my response to the post due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung which put Jewish readers to only read the Christian perspective without me being allowed to post the Jewish perspective as revealed to me. This could lead IMHHHHO to an indoctrination of Jewish readers that are not wise enough to dismiss the statement. And many readers here are impaired by depression and mind-altering drugs so they IMHO do not have a level playing field here do so. This happened in the historical record where Jewish books were burned and Jews were not allowed to practice Judaism openly and Jews were not even allowed to be teachers or psychiatrists.
Never again.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2014, at 9:49:59
In reply to Lou's reply-knurmbglwz » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2014, at 16:46:04
> > Hi Lou
> >
> > My sense is that your goals are:
> >
> > 1. to persuade people that psychopharmacological treatments (drugs) are dangerous and possibly fatal to the person taking them, both from their chemical form and their effects when taken;
> >
> > I believe that you believe also that these drugs are a work of evil and have said that people who taken them will end up in a "lake of fire"-- I assume in an afterlife as punishment for taking these drugs during their lifetimes.
> >
> > I think you are trying to save people from these dangers.
> >
> > 2 You also have the goal of having statements that you judge to be anti-semitic sanctioned in some way so that they will not stand.
> >
> > 3. The poster who called you "bigoted" had some reason in their mind fir saying this. .-- I am not aware that someone did, or when someone did this-- . Therefore, because I don't know the circumstances in which this name-calling occurred, I can't comment on the other person's motivation.
> >
> > 4. There is something that you have written that has offended someone or caused her/him to think you are bigoted. This does not mean the person is correct, only that something that you did probbly did evoke this.
> >
> > 5. The statement "no Non-Christian can enter heaven" is a conventional view of many Christian denominations. It is in my view totally incorrect-- and many contemporary Christians do not subscribe to this view. Some however do.
> >
> > So no-- it is not sensitive to Jewish readers.
> >
> > But I also hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss such statements, even if they also may rightfully argue against them. I believe Jewish readers defeat such statements by showing that they were historic mistakes.
> >
> > In a context in which there is no threat to Jews, these statements should be ignored, not given more attention-- because attention only spreads them further and gives them more power.
> >
> > So I would personally try to make such statements irrelevent, not to focus on them, which makes those who believe them defend them more.
> >
> > ~~~
> >
> > I hope this helps give you my perspective.
> >
>
> Willful,
> You wrote that you hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss such statements, (as,... no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
> There could be a subset of Jewish readers that could feel put down when they read it here because Mr. Hsiung states that statements that are un repudiated by him or his deputies are statements that are not against his rules. And Mr. Hsiung also states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. And he also states that being supportive takes precedence so that readers could think that the statement in question is supportive. Mr. Hsiung also states to not post what could be insensitive or disrespectful to another's religion. To say that no non-Christian can enter heaven, a subset of readers could think that is analogous to Jews can not enter heaven.
> Then there could be vulnerable Jewish readers and other readers that are depicted in the statement that could feel immense hurt and go into a deeper depression that they are already in because they could feel ridiculed because the forum's administration allows the statement to be seen as supportive since it stands un repudiated. And they could see my efforts to purge the statement and the resistance to my efforts which IMHHHO could reinforce the hurt feelings that these readers could have when they read, [...no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
> This could lead Jewish and other readers depicted in the statement to feel devalued as guests here, thinking that the administration of the forum is validating what the statement purports since it is not repudiated by them. And there could be Jewish and other readers depicted in the statement that can not overcome the power that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies have to control the content here and could think that as Jews and the others, think feelings of inferiority and be indoctrinated to think that Judaism is inferior to Christianity because the statement, no non-Christian can enter heaven, could be seen as being validated by a psychiatrist. That is more powerful of a persuasion than if, let's say, they see it on television stated by a Christian preacher.
> The argument was used by some public schools before it was made illegal in the U.S., to try to convert Jewish students by saying that they should be taught strong enough at home to reject the pressure of the school authorities trying to convert them to Christianity. The courts ruled differently and IMHO for very good reason. The same argument that you hope and believe that Jewish readers are wise enough to dismiss, IMHO is not valid on the grounds that I am prevented from posting my response to the post due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung which put Jewish readers to only read the Christian perspective without me being allowed to post the Jewish perspective as revealed to me. This could lead IMHHHHO to an indoctrination of Jewish readers that are not wise enough to dismiss the statement. And many readers here are impaired by depression and mind-altering drugs so they IMHO do not have a level playing field here do so. This happened in the historical record where Jewish books were burned and Jews were not allowed to practice Judaism openly and Jews were not even allowed to be teachers or psychiatrists.
> Never again.
> LouWillful,
You wrote,[...in a context in which there is no threat to Jews, these (anti-Semitic) statements should be ignored...because attention spreads them further and gives them more power...which makes those that believe them defend them more...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. I know for a fact, Lou, that in this context, the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record can not be a threat to Jews and I will post here why I have the authority to say that it is a fact.
B. redacted by respondent
C. I know for a fact, Lou, that giving attention to the anti-Semitic statements in question gives them more power and I will post here what that power is.
D. Those that believe the anti-Semitic statements in question here are defending them because you want them purged, Lou, and I will list some of those links showing that to validates my claim, Lou.
E. The anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here, Lou, that you are wanting purged, will be good for this community as a whole to remain plainly visible un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung, and I will post here why I think so.
Lou
Posted by Willful on April 7, 2014, at 1:13:40
In reply to Lou's request to Willful-lehykofphyr, posted by Lou Pilder on April 6, 2014, at 9:49:59
A I believe as a matter of fact, that the statements you allude to,do not pose a threat to Jews. I state this based on the laws of logic, and my observations. Statements made in the past that no one pays any attention to, and that are completely forgotten, and that have evoked no further interest, remark, or note, do not pose a threat to anyone. If they remain forgotten, and without connection to the present, they are as if they never were.
I have the authority to observe this and to draw the obvious conclusions, because I am capable of reason, of observing and drawing logical conclusions, and of applying common sense.
B I cannot respond to redactions.
C I know for a fact that giving attention to the statements you allude to will give them more power-- for it puts them into a position to be read again, to be considered again, and for some people to argue in their defense again, as members of religious group for whom these statements still remain true.
When a dead and buried statement is disinterred, it becomes more powerful because it is again alive.
D No one is defending these statements at the moment-. So there are no links to anyone defending the statements.
However, because the statements are reawakened, and put into question as the object attacks, people who believe that the statements are true, for religious reasons, may be quite offended-- which may in fact awaken a dislike for those who attack their beliefs.
They would not defend them because you, Lou, want them purged, but because it has become a matter debate whether the statements are destructive for the community-- and they may want to relitigate the unacceptability of the statements to a different conclusions from yours--- ie that such statements should be allowed.
E Because the statements are only plainly visible because you keep bringing them into sight, you are bringing what you believe to be anti-semitic statements into plain view-- Before you restated them and pointed us back to their pages. they had become invisible. You and you alone are giving them visibility.
It is preferable in my view to let them return to invisibility where they had become harmless, instead of insisting that people read them again and again, and think about them again and again.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 7, 2014, at 8:53:23
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Willful-lehykofphyr, posted by Willful on April 7, 2014, at 1:13:40
> A I believe as a matter of fact, that the statements you allude to,do not pose a threat to Jews. I state this based on the laws of logic, and my observations. Statements made in the past that no one pays any attention to, and that are completely forgotten, and that have evoked no further interest, remark, or note, do not pose a threat to anyone. If they remain forgotten, and without connection to the present, they are as if they never were.
>
> I have the authority to observe this and to draw the obvious conclusions, because I am capable of reason, of observing and drawing logical conclusions, and of applying common sense.
>
> B I cannot respond to redactions.
>
> C I know for a fact that giving attention to the statements you allude to will give them more power-- for it puts them into a position to be read again, to be considered again, and for some people to argue in their defense again, as members of religious group for whom these statements still remain true.
>
> When a dead and buried statement is disinterred, it becomes more powerful because it is again alive.
>
> D No one is defending these statements at the moment-. So there are no links to anyone defending the statements.
>
> However, because the statements are reawakened, and put into question as the object attacks, people who believe that the statements are true, for religious reasons, may be quite offended-- which may in fact awaken a dislike for those who attack their beliefs.
>
> They would not defend them because you, Lou, want them purged, but because it has become a matter debate whether the statements are destructive for the community-- and they may want to relitigate the unacceptability of the statements to a different conclusions from yours--- ie that such statements should be allowed.
>
> E Because the statements are only plainly visible because you keep bringing them into sight, you are bringing what you believe to be anti-semitic statements into plain view-- Before you restated them and pointed us back to their pages. they had become invisible. You and you alone are giving them visibility.
>
> It is preferable in my view to let them return to invisibility where they had become harmless, instead of insisting that people read them again and again, and think about them again and again.
>
> Willful,
You wrote,[...I base this on the laws of logic and my observations...] (the anti-Semitic statements that you are trying to purge, Lou, do not pose a threat to Jews).
If something is logical, that does not mean that it has to be true. For instance, it was logical in a time past that life came from horse manure. After all, people could observe that flies came out of the manure and maggots could be seen wiggling in the manure. So to those ignorant of how the maggots and flies appeared from the horse manure, they thought that their logic and observation was the truth and that life came from horse manure. Louis Pasture showed the ignorance of those that used their logic and observation in disease also. You see, ignorance can distort what others could see as being logical by their observations.
But let us look at the situation here in discussion as to the anti-Semitic statements being wanting to be purged by me here. You see, those statements are here to be seen in the present, for the record here could be analogous to a library where readers could pick out a book even though the book was put on the shelf previously. Readers could find themselves in a search here to the statements that put down Jews and others and see that they are un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung and all of his deputies of record then. That could lead a subset of readers to think that the anti-Semitic statements are reflecting the thinking of Mr. Hsiung and his deputies then because they are standing un repudiated which could mean that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies think that the anti-Semitism in the posts in question are not against the rules here and will be good for this community as a whole and supportive. Supportive of what, I ask.
Now this does have precedent. When racism was made illegal in public schools in the U.S. there were books in some libraries in public schools that were racist as having racist content. There were those that wanted those type of books purged from the school and there were school authorities that wanted those books to remain. Their argument was that they had members of the community that had in their belief system that one race was superior to other races. And since that was their belief, they would defend it by saying that the books remain since they had established there in the past and they could not be removed or their racist thinking would be insulted. They contended that they had a right to have those beliefs, but the law stated that it is fine to believe what you want, but it is not legal to foster or promote or encourage racist beliefs by having those books in a public school library. If the school was a private school, that could be different.
Now here, I have made the offer to Mr. Hsiung to purge the posts by deleting them that are antisemitc in that they could lead one to feel put down when they read it as what in the statement could put down Jews. Then he could repost them after our discussion if it was determined to be within his rules here to post such. We are also in discussion about these posts and he has agreed to post something to those posts and has done so to some already.
I contend that this site is like a library because it has archives and readers can find those posts in question right in the present time and could foster anti-Semitism by the nature that anti-Semitic posts are standing un repudiated and that could mean to a subset of readers that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies have a particular intent to keep those statements visible as being what will be good for this community as a whole because what is not sanctioned is not against the rules as Mr. Hsiung has posted here. The rule is not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths even if one believes it and even if it is a foundation of their religion, for some foundations of faiths can not be posted here as Mr. Hsiung states.
Lou>
>
>
>
>
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.