![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 168 to 192 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to a_k- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 19:17:48
a-k,
You wrote,[....false alarm...].
It is not my intention to show that a post is not in accordance with the guidlines of the forum, but to discover if the thinking of Dr. Hsiung determins if the statement is acceptable or not.
So I can not endorse any hit or miss type of policy, because I am requesting Dr. Hsiung to make that determination because it may fall into the catagory of a statment that is not already determined as far as I can see. I can only know what is visible here, so my requests are for discovery, not to "hit" or miss. I am not looking for a 'hit", for his decision that a statement is acceptable means the same to me that if the statement is not acceptable.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 19:47:40
In reply to Lou's reply to a_k-htorms » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 19:28:29
I think I understand that your posts are attempts at discovery. That you are trying to better understand the civility rules. That you consider that requesting frequent determinations are the best way that you can go about doing that.
So the 'hit' 'false alarm' terminology wasn't really appropriate - and I apologise for that.
If you want to know what Dr Bob thinks about whether a post is civil or not, rather than just informing him of a post that you do consider uncivil, then why can't you do the former via email?
I think...
The admin board is supposed to be more for the latter kind of case.
The former is very time consuming... Can you see that it might take a lower priority with respect to time management? That might be why you have to wait for a response sometimes.Maybe there could be a 'civility determinations' mailing list for people who want to participate???
For people who think there is a benefit to the process.I'm not sure that headway is being made.
Do you really think that asking for determinations is helping you understand the civility rules any better?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 19:51:42
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 18:58:40
> How would that work? Since people don't generally know that their posts are going to be brought up for review...
What I'd proposed to Bob, at the top of the thread, is that as part of the registration process one could be asked, “If your posts are publicly brought to the attention of Administration for a ruling on their acceptability would you like to be notified?” (I just added publicly, 'cause it wasn't in my original proposal.) Then, when Admin gets a request, they could send you an email with a URL so you could see who was challenging you and about which post. Does that explain my idea better?
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 20:01:58
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 18:30:10
> Do you mean no more mail that tells you someone else's post is a please by civil. Or notification that someone is blocked. I for one want to know. I would have wondered what had happened to Larry if it wasn't in my mailbox.
Whoa, Nellie! I didn't know we had that option. Is that something you can request as part of the registration process? That you get notices if someone gets a PBC or a block?
Anyway, I'm proposing that no matter what else we decide to do (or not do) here, I'd like members to have an option that let's them request that they receive an email from Admin if someone publicly requests a ruling on them. Then, you don't have to cruise the Admin board to know if you're being investigated (so to speak). Some might not want to know when they are... but I do, and I think others might like to know too.
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 20:21:31
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Phillipa, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 20:01:58
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. You know a lot more about the rules than I do. But I wouldn't have known about Larry if I hadn't been on the Thread and received a Dr. Bob response and when clicking seen Larry was blocked. Forgive me I get confused. These admin posts can become so complicated to someone like me with a "pea" brain. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 21:07:44
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2005, at 20:21:31
> Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. You know a lot more about the rules than I do. But I wouldn't have known about Larry if I hadn't been on the Thread and received a Dr. Bob response and when clicking seen Larry was blocked. Forgive me I get confused. These admin posts can become so complicated to someone like me with a "pea" brain. Fondly, Phillipa
I don't think you're pea-brained. I honestly thought you knew about some option I didn't know about. Glad we cleared that up!
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 21:28:12
In reply to Re: Lou's response Dinah's post-grpprsur » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 17:14:03
> I didn't say he had. In fact, he seems to have embraced an idea that would allow posters who post in the style you post to continue to do so, but would limit others' complaints about it.
>
> Which is fine, except that he is explaining this idea as one to address the concerns of others.
>
> He's free to limit discussions about any particular poster's posting style. It's his board. But I don't think he should try to do it in such a way that misleads others into thinking that he is proposing this rule to address *their* concerns.
>
> I have no particular interest in this personally. Your posting style doesn't bother me.Dinah,
You wrote,[...I have no particular interest in this...]
I was wondering if your thinking in this matter has the potential for you, in your opinion, that the policy that that group of members is trying to get Dr. Hsiung to implement, could, perhaps be a policy that could fall into the catagory as being unsupportive to others that are getting support from reading my posts?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 21:38:49
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-nutralty » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 21:28:12
No.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:00:41
In reply to Dr. Bob - 3-complaint rule or ???, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 14:27:11
> It wouldn't solve the issue many people seem interested in. But it might solve complaints about the issue.
Sorry, isn't it complaints that are the issue?
> How about my current suggestion below, that each poster be allowed one or two posts about specific posts per month on Admin
And they could be about the same person's posts every month?
> Limiting the complaints about one poster by another would seem to only apply in a minority of cases, and would mainly benefit the administrator of the site, IMHO.
>
> DinahI think it's great if rules aren't applied a lot. :-)
I should've been more clear that the limit wouldn't apply to complaints about my posts or my policies...
--
> I think it would be nice if there was a limit on requests for determination that are false alarms
>
> alexandra_kIsn't that what I proposed? :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511006.html
--
> I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
Sorry, but I think it's easier if it's one thread, so I've incorporated yours into this one.
> I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts – that weren’t about me or something I’d written. Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post?
A could keep questioning them. But if any more of the questioned posts were considered civil, those complaints would be considered uncivil.
> Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
Yes, if there's a chance that the questioned post would be considered civil, then B would be taking a risk.
> Let’s say that Poster A questions each [and every] member’s posts two times...
That would be an issue, but it's not the current issue...
> If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
Could I substitute 10 years? :-)
> > If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves?
>
> I’d like to.
>
> Minnie-HahaThe question isn't whether they'd like to, it's whether they'd need to...
Bob
Posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 23:50:25
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-nutralty » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2005, at 21:28:12
> perhaps be a policy that could fall into the catagory as being unsupportive to others that are getting support from reading my posts?
> Lou
>I was ready to say anything that is not supportive can be unsupportive, which would be more of a neutral term, but then I looked up the word.
I didn't find it in the dictionary.
The word "unsupportive" doesn't appear in Websters on-line dictionary, but it does appear 93 times in a Google search of http://www.dr-bob.org/babble aka "Psycho-Babble", so the word "unsupportive" could fall into the category of "a Psycho-Babble word".
.
.
:
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|Eureka!
I wrote the paragraph above, contemplated it's propriety vis-a-vis the site guidelines, wondered if it is okay to call something "psychobabble" being especially certian I wasn't being sarcastic, and it dawned on me... What does "psychobabble" mean anyway? Who brought the term and the concept onto this page?
The word was the title of a book highly critical of popular pscyhology. The word is almost always used as a term critical of psychological discourse, with the possible exception of this forum where I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. But guess what - when I first found this forum, I thought it was about exactly what the popular meaning of the word was about. Boy was I ever suprised!So just now I did a reality check. Here's how people use the word, outside of this forum, which is where I learned it:
Dr. Leon's "Psychobabble glossary":
http://www.drleons.com/babble.htmWas Alan Parsons supportive of psychology? His song "Psychobabble" is the theme of this site.
In "Freudiana" he wrote:
I found a Freudian book gathering dust upon my shelf.
I thought I'll give it a look, would it hurt or would it help?
I saw a picture of a stranger but I don't understand.
He had a ring around his finger and something burning in his hand.
And I wanted him to teach me and I needed to believe.
But the shadows that he threw me were intended to deceive.
Freudiana, do you want to be somebody?
Freudiana, do you want to change the world?
And what are the lyrics to "Psychobabble" -- the theme song of this site? "Civil" or not?You're readin' my mind you won't look in my eyes
You say I do things that I don't realise
But I don't care it's all psychobabble rap to me
Psychobabble all psychobabble
Psychobabble all psychobabble
You're lighting a scene that's faded to black
I threw it away cause I don't want it back
But I don't care it's all psychobabble rap
And what about the book "Psychobabble" that made the term a household word?
It was subtitled "Psychobabble: Fast Talk and Quick Cure in the Era of Feeling" 1973
Twenty years later, another author used the same title to criticize modern psychology, this time subtitled "The Failure of Modern Psychology and the Biblical Alternative".
In Psychology Today July/August 1998, Professor of Psychology Kay Deaux, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, in an article titled "Beyond Psychobabble" explored "approaches used to assess various aspects of psychology; factors which influence '****BABBLING***' among individuals; and detailed "some of the errors which can evolve when attempting to analyze psychological problems.
Drop the "psycho" and just consider "babble" ... is that word ever used with a positive connotation regarding the speech so described?Then I contemplate what was apparently one person's evolution toward developing rules of "civility" apparently several years after deciding to name a forum "Psycho-babble" -- at a time when he had little idea what issues would arise in administering the forum. I'm not sure the name would hold up today -- if the forum was named "Robert Hsiung's Mental Health Support and Education Web Site" and someones message about people's failures and shortcomings when discussing mental health issues was titled "Psychobabble" would they be asked not to post anything that might make others feel put down?
And I think about other issues -- support, attachment, nostalgia -- how much harm and how much good could come from requiring everyone involved in this forum to let go of the familiar name -- same rules, same yellow pages, same script, same "Dr. Bob" -- just another name -- no more "Psychobabble". Why doesn't the name of the site conform to the same expectations we are to follow.
I not writing this to put down the name -- I consider Alan Parsons to be a profound artist -- I'm just suggesting it might be time to retire the name, and replace it with something more suitable for the current expectations of the forum.
No .... no need to shut down the forums. Let's just start talking about a new name ...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 23:55:29
In reply to Re: Beyond Pscyhobabble, posted by so on June 15, 2005, at 23:50:25
I thought...
Psychobabble was the technical garb of clinicians.
And here... Psychobabble was about us (the consumer) taking the power back. Reclaiming the language.
But maybe I'm off...
I saw it as an affectionate and amusing name.
But maybe I'm off...
Posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:42:01
In reply to Re: Beyond Pscyhobabble, posted by alexandra_k on June 15, 2005, at 23:55:29
> I thought...
>
> Psychobabble was the technical garb of clinicians.As defined by the President of the American Psychological Association in 1998, it is the voices of consumers acting as professionals without adequate knowledge to practice.
> And here... Psychobabble was about us (the consumer) taking the power back. Reclaiming the language.The therapeutic language? is this project modeled after a therapuetic community or after mutual support groups? Do people go to professionals for support and education? Do professionals practice therapeutic dialogue in open forums?
> But maybe I'm off...
>
> I saw it as an affectionate and amusing name.
>
> But maybe I'm off...Amusing yes --- and sharply critical in most contexts
sharp criticism + amusement = ???
Posted by alexandra_k on June 16, 2005, at 0:52:40
In reply to Re: Beyond Pscyhobabble, posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:42:01
> As defined by the President of the American Psychological Association in 1998, it is the voices of consumers acting as professionals without adequate knowledge to practice.
He he!
We talk about our experiences.
Whose most qualified there, eh?
:-)
> > And here... Psychobabble was about us (the consumer) taking the power back. Reclaiming the language.Who would have thought 'PsychoBabble' could be theraputic, eh?
BAM!
Ya gotta take the power back
> Amusing yes --- and sharply critical in most contextsYeah. Thats what I meant about reclaiming the language.
No doubt the psychologists wouldn't have thought Babbling very useful / theraputic.
The mean it to be a derogatory comment.
> sharp criticism + amusement = ???I didn't think it was that so much as Dr Bob thinking he'd give it a shot anyways.
I use 'Babbling' to be synonomous with 'posting'. I prefer Babbling. To me it sounds cuter :-)
It doesn't have negative connotations to me anymore.
And before...
I thought it was amusing.
A pun.
We Babble (post) about psyc stuff.
It is true that most of us aren't qualified to practice.
But so what?
That doesn't mean we can't be helpful.
More helpful than those who do, even :-)
Posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 1:21:23
In reply to Re: Beyond Pscyhobabble » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 16, 2005, at 0:52:40
> > As defined by the President of the American Psychological Association in 1998, it is the voices of consumers acting as professionals without adequate knowledge to practice.
>
> He he!
> We talk about our experiences.
> Whose most qualified there, eh?A person who has studied the experiences of a large number of people, using the best scientific methods to detect patterns and meaning without the subjective impression of any one personal experience?
>
> > > And here... Psychobabble was about us (the consumer) taking the power back. Reclaiming the language.
>
> Who would have thought 'PsychoBabble' could be theraputic, eh?I don't know. Everything I've read in the FAQ's say it is for support and education. I think if somebody offers therapy online they need a license.
> Ya gotta take the power back
Why? Who took it away? Or was it given away?
> > Amusing yes --- and sharply critical in most contexts
>
> Yeah. Thats what I meant about reclaiming the language.Reclaiming the language by calling our conversations "babble"?
> No doubt the psychologists wouldn't have thought Babbling very useful / theraputic.
> The mean it to be a derogatory comment.As did critics of clinical psychology who published the book and wrote the song. So do we agree that it is usually used as a derogatory term?
> > sharp criticism + amusement = ???
>
> I didn't think it was that so much as Dr Bob thinking he'd give it a shot anyways.Do you have any evidence of how much thought went into selecting the name?
> I use 'Babbling' to be synonomous with 'posting'. I prefer Babbling. To me it sounds cuter :-)Cute?
Is cute supportive? or is it educational? Come to think of it, I feel put down when my expressed thoughts are labeled "babble." Maybe that's why I don't post on the other boards much. I'm not trying to be cute. It reminds me somewhat of the "n" word. After it was used as an insult for a century, some people decided it was cute to use it among themselves to refer to themselves. But some elders of that community don't think using the word that way does much to relieve the pain.
> That doesn't mean we can't be helpful.
> More helpful than those who do, even :-)
Do the math. The clinics are still saving far more lives.And we can learn to use the language as well or better than clinicians without using a diminutive term for our interactions.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 16, 2005, at 10:32:38
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:00:41
> > I hope you don't mind that I started a separate thread on the subject, since it seems to be referenced in numerous places and the discussion is therefore hard to follow.
>
> Sorry, but I think it's easier if it's one thread, so I've incorporated yours into this one.OK. It seems to me that this is something that other posters have done before successfully. Since this thread started out with an unrelated topic, and since the 3-complaint rule and suggested alternatives seem to be open to a lot of interesting debate, I thought it might be good to start a new thread. But it's your site. Sorry if I overstepped my bounds.
> > I am Poster A. Twice I have asked Administration to make a call on Poster B’s posts ** that weren’t about me or something I’d written** Twice Admin has ruled that his/her posts were civil. Would I ever again be able to question a Poster B post?
>
> A could keep questioning them. But if any more of the questioned posts were considered civil, those complaints would be considered uncivil.Even if A's requests ** were about something B said about A or something A had written ** (as opposed to some other question about the acceptability of what B posted)?
> > Would I need to be 100 percent sure (if that’s possible) that he/she has been uncivil without risking a PBC or block?
>
> Yes, if there's a chance that the questioned post would be considered civil, then B would be taking a risk.OK.
> > Let’s say that Poster A questions each [and every] member’s posts two times...
>
> That would be an issue, but it's not the current issue...Actually, it seems like it to me, but once again, it's your site.
> > If during “a calendar year” [substitute whatever Admin thinks is fair] Poster A questions Poster B’s posts two or more times, and those requests lead to two judgments by Administration that the questioned posts were civil, then any subsequent request by Poster A about Poster B, which follows with a judgment that the questioned post was civil, shall result in Poster A being blocked.
>
> Could I substitute 10 years? :-)Sure. Heck, you wouldn't even have to be fair (which I've always assumed you would be)... it is your forum.
> > > If the complaint isn't upheld, then do they need to defend themselves?
> >
> > I’d like to.
> >
> > Minnie-Haha
>
> The question isn't whether they'd like to, it's whether they'd need to...
>
> BobSo we can post other things we'd like to (as long as they're civil), but we can't defend ourselves if we'd like to, because we don't need to? OK.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 11:46:12
In reply to Re: 3-complaint rule, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 0:03:06
Sorry - it took a while to find them:
The proposal:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/407882.html
Some more discussion and the final decision:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/408096.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/409532.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410251.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410566.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/411467.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/411935.htmlfrom a different thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410814.html
need more?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 10:23:20
In reply to Re: links » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 11:46:12
> Some more discussion and the final decision...
Duh! My response to a couple of the above:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/514263.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2006, at 0:36:55
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
I'm still trying, but each post now also has a "notify the administrators" section (instead of a button).
Bob
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 22, 2006, at 16:53:39
In reply to Re: notify the administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2006, at 0:36:55
(whew)
I thought I was making that up.um- was this option always here? um, why did I babble-mail administrators instead of using this option?
umm- why does the screen look different...
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
> > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
>
> Right:
>
> > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2015, at 6:48:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2004, at 8:17:46
> It's my understanding that nothing on this site is "endorsed" by Dr. Bob, and that he takes responsibility only for his own words. If he finds something doesn't comply with site guidelines he takes admin action. But not taking admin action doesn't imply endorsement or approval. Admin action only says that something is in noncompliance. Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken.
Dinah,
You wrote that by Mr. Hsiung leaving a statement up that he means that no rule has been broken. This is the crux of a great issue here where anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation against me are being allowed by Mr. Hsiung to stand which could convey to readers that no rule has been broken. What I would like from you is the following:
A. Return to posting so that I can elucidate further information from you to help readers clarify that what I am doing here is to try to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing anti-Semitism to be seen as that no rule has been broken
B. Return to posting so that harm to Jews could be avoided by a subset of readers that could think that Mr. Hsiung is denying me equal protection of his rules by refusing to honor his enforcement policy in relation to leaving my notifications to him to be outstanding, which could lead some to think that he is against the Jews because that allows anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as not against the rules, which is what anti-Semitism entails.
C. Return to posting so that we could discuss Mr. Hsiung's statement that he does not respond to me so that others might not respond to me, which could induce anti-Semitic hate as readers seing that Mr. Hsiung is advocating the shunning of me here and that others have also advocated that which could be from his example.
D. Return to posting to discuss other good and just issues here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2015, at 7:04:44
In reply to Re: doesn't even mean it's not against the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> >
> > Right:
> >
> > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Do you expect educated readers that know the history of European Fascism where those leaders justified genocide by saying that they were doing what will be good for their country as a whole and to trust them and trust their judgement, to go along with you here?
Do you expect rational readers to accept your justification for leaving anti-Semitic propaganda here to be seen as civil and supportive by you knowing that the justification that you use is the same justification used to have slavery?
Lou Pilder
Posted by 10derheart on December 21, 2015, at 15:36:28
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah-not against his rules » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2015, at 6:48:13
Not healthy.
Don't hold your breath.
Don't hold your breath.
Dinah will not be back.
Dinah will not be back.
11 years ago.
11 years ago.
Get help.
Living in the past. Not healthy.
Posted by SLS on December 21, 2015, at 18:50:24
In reply to living in the past » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 21, 2015, at 15:36:28
Hi.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2015, at 16:04:11
In reply to living in the past » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 21, 2015, at 15:36:28
> Not healthy.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
> Dinah will not be back.
>
> Dinah will not be back.
>
> 11 years ago.
>
> 11 years ago.
>
> Get help.
>
> Living in the past. Not healthy.
>
Friends,
Be not deceived. The anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen by Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record as being supportive that I have been objecting to for years could infect the same impressionable minds today even if those statements were posted in the past. And some do go back 11 years.
But because Mr. Hsiung will not post a repudiation to those posts, readers could think even more strongly that he wants them to be seen as civil and worse, that he has some vision that his community will be good for the whole by him leaving those statements to be seen as being supportive where they are originally posted.
The statements can induce hate from here directed at the Jews and others that I am objecting to. How much hate and where it goes I can not know for it is carried by the wind of the internet. But when Jews are murdered by those of hate groups spewing out the same hate that is here being allowed to be seen as supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for his community as a whole to be seen that way, that I am objecting to, I have to wonder where they got it.
Attempting to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as being supportive here is continuing to try to stop him. If it started 10 or 20 years ago, but can be seen now as being supportive, the fire of hate is still burning.
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.