![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:57:32
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:27:32
> > Hi Lou.
> >
> > > Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory
> >
> > Mental illness is a very real human condition. I have a mental illness. Knowing this, what is there about me that would deserve a defamatory characterization by you? What did I do wrong? I would encourage you to not add to the stigmatization of mental illness by equating it with defamation.
> >
> > > and that you say that my religiosness is a result
> >
> > Religiosity is a clinical symptom of bipolar manic psychosis. It is not a judgment made upon the religion that the affected person practices.
> >
> > > The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory.
> >
> > The term "mental illness" may not be well defined or understood by much of the public. However, I would hope that your understanding of it were educated and enlightened, as you are a frequent visitor to a forum devoted to the phenomenology of these medical conditions. If I came to the conclusion that you were diabetic and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you? If I came to the conclusion that you were mentally ill and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you?
> >
> > My saying that you are mentally ill would in no way represent some sort of accusation by me any more than would my saying that you had influenza. I do have some thoughts regarding your behaviors here on Psycho-Babble, but I am not convinced that it would be productive to divulge them at this juncture. My concern for your welfare is very real. If you were in the midst of a bipolar psychotic manic state, it is unlikely that you would recognize it as being such. It is likely, however, that you would reject any suggestions that you were indeed manic.
> >
> > I don't know whether or not this applies to you, but:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&oq=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&gs_l=hp.3...1196.11065.0.11663.38.37.1.0.0.0.159.2680.34j3.37.0.les%3Befrsh..0.0...1.1.yWqizDyRoc0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=92da361fb107ce2f&bpcl=35466521&biw=1920&bih=910
> >
> > I do not believe that anything I have written here will influence your thoughts and behaviors. I am hoping that it might influence others.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> You wrote the above and asked how writing in a public venue that someone has a mental illness could be defamatory.
> The laws of defamation have a section on making a false statement that could damage another's reputation. Liable is the term used when the defamtion is written as here as being published.
> when someone is subjected to mental anguish, as I am here, the person is damaged by the mental anguish written toward them and published as in this forum.
> Then a false statement that could produce mental anguish is like writing that a person has a sexually transmitted disease or a mental illness. This is in all states in the US except a few and Oh nd Ill are not in the five states. The writing that a person has a mental illness is called liable per se. There is no need to prove that the liable damaged the person.
> Now then there are other aspects of defamtion that can offset the laible, such as if the statement is true. But in this case, the writer associates the mental illness with religiosness which gives it a different perspective as the recipiant (me) is complaining about antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and lies being posted about me here.
> Now we are not talking abut a defamtion case, but only that as I understand it,in all states except 5, writing that a person has a mental illness is defamatory and liable per se.
> There is a stigmatization involved and I agree. That is why I object to anyone here have it written that they have a mental illness, including myself. Someone could be going through a time of great distress such as a death in the family and such and be quite depressed. One could be givn a drug by a psychiarist that induced depression or mania or suicidal ideation. That does not mean that they are mentally ill and can be labled as such. That is why calling someone mentally ill can be defamatory.
> Now Mr. Hsiung is allowing the defamation which is a separate topic, but is there not the question that by him allowing it, that he is encouraging it?
>
> Lou
>
> Scott,
There are more aspects to defamtion involved in publishing that a person has a "mental illness". There is some cases that involve telling of someone's sexual problems or their mental problems that even if the statements are true, that does not protect them against the charge of defamtion. And there is what as known as {false light}, the putting a person in a disorted image and such to believe something that is damaging to them. And if the damage is emotional or psychological, there is another issue in defamtion. There is the concept of infliction of emotional distress be it intentional or not. The truth may not be a defence in some cases. Then there is neglegence and other concepts that could be involved in defamation.
My overiding concern here is the use of the phrase, "mental illness". I consider it to be defamatory here or anywhere else.
Lou
>
Posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:57:32
I know this is a little pointless since Lou's going to see it, but there's really no other way.
Lou is Don Quixote. He's not going to stop charging (on a white horse?) at windmills that he claims are giants. And when we prove to him that they are only windmills, he's always going to say that an Evil Enchanter (Dr. Bob?) transformed those giants at the last minute. Lou, in perhaps the definitive meaning of madness, will never admit he's crazy. The only way to help him is to play along with his ideas: villify Mr. Hsuing, admit the anti-semitism, listen to his tales of Melvin Chezdeik. There's a terminal point in Lou's mental illness (i.e. the revelation of the truth about mental illness from a Jewish perspective.) It's this that is driving him, and his perceived barriers to communicating these revelations are clearly exacerbating his condition. He's being crushed by this great burden, and perhaps the first step towards helping him is to relieve him of this. I have a strong feeling that once Lou feels comfortable enough to disclose this revelation, we might get a great deal of insight into his condition from its contents. It looks a lot like Lou's been going in circles for the past couple of years, and has literally been "doing the same thing and expecting different results." I think we have a very clear opportunity here to help Lou finally move on to some begin spending his time more beneficially.
So where do we begin?
Posted by Phillipa on October 27, 2012, at 21:36:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
By admitting we just might also be mentally ill? All degrees of it are present on this forum some more severe than others. Just like a 12 step program? It's a beginning? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 1:35:26
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:27:32
Lou, your above average intelligence is showing again.
:-)
I must say that your writings are more eloquent and cogent lately.
You obviously have studied some law.
Slander and libel are not easy to prove if one has offered an opinion rather than portrayed a statement as being fact. And, of course, any such statement must be proved false. Rightly or wrongly, I think your writings about your receiving divine revelations would make it particularly difficult for you to prove any falsehood in statements that call into question the status of your mental health.
I cannot determine whether or not you have a diagnosable mental illness. I am not trained to do this. However, I am often concerned about your mental health.
Regarding antisemitism and bigotry, I don't think you can construct a model whereby any comment suggesting that you are mentally ill is de facto an act of antisemitism. This is another issue that I believe would act as an obstacle to your winning any law suits.
I know that people who are intent on injuring Jews can be very clever with words. Such words can influence the beliefs and behaviors of others. Being Jewish myself, I am glad that there are people who stand as sentinels to guard against the emergence and persistence of antisemitism. There are still pockets of antisemitism in the US, such that I would fear for my safety were I to find myself surrounded by such hatred.
I am concerned that your ceaseless attempts to find antisemitism where it may not exist might actually have the unintended and undesirable effect of arousing antisemitic feelings.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 7:15:54
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se - I'm not sure, Lou. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 1:35:26
> Lou, your above average intelligence is showing again.
>
> :-)
>
> I must say that your writings are more eloquent and cogent lately.
>
> You obviously have studied some law.
>
> Slander and libel are not easy to prove if one has offered an opinion rather than portrayed a statement as being fact. And, of course, any such statement must be proved false. Rightly or wrongly, I think your writings about your receiving divine revelations would make it particularly difficult for you to prove any falsehood in statements that call into question the status of your mental health.
>
> I cannot determine whether or not you have a diagnosable mental illness. I am not trained to do this. However, I am often concerned about your mental health.
>
> Regarding antisemitism and bigotry, I don't think you can construct a model whereby any comment suggesting that you are mentally ill is de facto an act of antisemitism. This is another issue that I believe would act as an obstacle to your winning any law suits.
>
> I know that people who are intent on injuring Jews can be very clever with words. Such words can influence the beliefs and behaviors of others. Being Jewish myself, I am glad that there are people who stand as sentinels to guard against the emergence and persistence of antisemitism. There are still pockets of antisemitism in the US, such that I would fear for my safety were I to find myself surrounded by such hatred.
>
> I am concerned that your ceaseless attempts to find antisemitism where it may not exist might actually have the unintended and undesirable effect of arousing antisemitic feelings.
>
>
> - Scott
>Scott
You wrote the above,
Be advised that I am not in any litigation with anyone concerning a lawsuit about defamtion.
BUt note that saying what defames someone is an opinion and not fact is not always a defense in defamation. For instance, if one posted here, [...I think so and so is a pedophil, the aspect of the preface to the defamtion being that it is an opinion I do not think will be a defence. The same with saying that they think someone has a mental illness, or a sexually transmitted disease.
The question as to if someone has revelation from the God that they give service and worship to is a justification for them to claim that the person has a mental illness is depreciating the character and could be causing emotional pain to the person accused of being mentally ill. And if the claim is done deliberatly, that is even a greatr liable. And if it done maliciously, then that is even a more hatefull attempt to defame.
The aspect of looking for antisemitism is simply a lie. The antisemitism here is promuilgated by the fact that antisemitic statements are allowed toi stand. That means according to the rule-drafter here that what stands could be considerd to be supportive and going even further than that, the rule-drasfter here states that be doing uch, he will be doing what will be goo for this communnity as whole. So hatred toward the Jews will be good for tghis communit as a whole. Bur it is much more than that. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to me can not be posted by me here. This could be classified as what is known as {against Judaism} here. To see this post one can go to the search at the bottom of this page and put in:
[schleprock, Hello from 2012] {I am prohibited from posting a link here by Mr Hsiung that would bring that post up}.
Now the foundation of Christiandom that states that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children that were murdered by Jew-haters from an era of time that I am also prohibited by Mr Hsiung from postig about here, are said here to not being to have Etyernal Life or forgivnesss from God because they were Jewish children that had atrocities commited against them and were murdered and that the mureres who accepted Jesus have forgivness and Eternal Life. Then the poster states that the bible says that. Really? I have been revealed otherwise but I am prohibited by Mr Hsiung from posting what could show that the bible says differently by the nature of other prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung.
Now lets look at this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
In that post, the establishment for hatred toward the Jews is laid here. The rule-drfter had a rule in place before this post that stated not to post links to where ther is antisemitic content in it. Then here, the rule-drafter states that {he has been thinking} whatever that could mean. But he did not apply his own rule to this post. Nor is there any reply to me to my requests to him to have dialog with him. That indifference has great significance here to the Jews.
Now going on, the rule drafter or someone that has his pasword, deleted the original post that had the link to antisemitic content. This is significant here. The poster of the original link that created the rule to not post links to antisemitic content had originally posted antisemitic content directly to me and the rule drafter would not highlite {that particular} statement as being uncivil. So it could be an establishment here that antisemitic statements are supportive. And that I am what the poster claimed which was defamatory and came from historical antisemitism that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung. And for you to find that post, I am prohibited also from posting the link to it here by Mr Hsiung's prohibition to me.
Now it is plainly visible in the post here in the link and I am not looking for it. I am niot looking for Mr Hsiung to posdt to me his prohibitions caliming that if I post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that I will beguilty of not being in civic harmoiny here. That statement also can be (redacted by respondent) as in the historicsl record that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung.
Now antisemitism is defined as hatred toward the Jews. But it is much more than this. The charge of being mentally ill was made against Jesus of the bible that the Christians use. The courts understand slander of this manner more than you may think. And the truth of the sjander may not be a defence for what constitutes one being mentally ill? If revelation from God means one is mentally ill, then this Jesus was mentall ill. And then so were the Jews in their scriptures that had revelation from God. And then all the Islamic people and Hindus an others that have faith in God and have reveltion are also mentally ill. The judge might have had revelation from God. The jurors may have had revelation from God. There may be a psychiatrist that had revelation from God and testify that he is not mentally ill. You see how lableing someone mentall ill becuase they receive revelation from God could fall to deaf ears? Do you see how that lale could be defamatory to a Jew or others?
But ZMr Hsiung is allowing it here to be promulgated that others lable me as mentally ill. That is (redacted by respondent).
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 8:54:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
schleprock,
You wrote the above. Please do not post statements here that could lead people to think that you are saying that I am crazy or any sarcasm directed at me. Any statement that purports that by you is a lie. Please do not post lies about me here or sarcasm, for lies and sarcasm and hate are hand to hand partners.
Your "Dr Bob" is allowing you to post lies and sarcasm about me here but that does not annul the fact that posting such is defamatory to me and can cause emotional harm. Mr Hsiung is giving the forum's members day after day after day all the time they want to post statements that are lies about me that can cause harm to me. There is historical parallel to Mr. Hsiung's actions of allowing this type of hate/ridicule to be promulgated on a mental health forum toward someone that is trying to stop him from allowing antisemitic statements from being allowed to stand here. This may go on and on and on. But I say to you, that you and all the others that take advantage of Mr Hsiung allowing members to post hatred toward me here could find that what Mr Hsiung is allowing could be detrimental to the mental health of those members that do such. And Mr Hsiung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. Then posting defamtion/hate/sarcasm toward me will be good for this community as a whole?
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 9:05:47
In reply to Lou's reply-antjudazm » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 7:15:54
Hi Lou.
Again, you present a cogent argument. I don't know enough about law to be able to question some of your assertions.
Regarding the equating of religious revelations with mental illness, it was not my intention of producing a definition. Like I said - rightly or wrongly - I think your description of having received divine revelations would prove to be an obstacle for you to overcome in court were you to sue for slander or libel. I'm glad that all of this is only an academic exercise at this point. It is likely that any attempt at litigation by you regarding statements made by others describing you as mentally ill would lead to scrutiny of your mental health. I think you would lose.
- Scott
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:03
In reply to Lou's response-moarhay » schleprock, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 8:54:57
Psychobabble - promoting antisemitism since 2004.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
In reply to Academic exercise. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 9:05:47
Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou? I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
Did I get that right, Lou? Did the Rider send you to Babble for that purpose? I'd really like to know, in order to understand you better. Besides, I've never particularly minded apocalyptic religious visions.
Right or wrong, religious experiences of that type are usually seen as a sign of mental illness in this society. I always say that I'd make a pretty rotten prophet, because I'd be most likely to take myself to a mental institution upon receiving a visitation of that sort.
But if the facts as Lou understands them are made known to those who seem to attribute negative motivations to Lou's behavior, people can draw their own conclusions about his negative views of psych meds, and his attributing a good deal to antisemetism, and his conclusions about the motivations of posters and Dr. Bob?
Not that I think his charge by the Rider to minister to this group absolves him from the responsibility of being a civil member of this community. I'd tend to think that he'd have a greater responsibility since he would be, in effect, a representative of the Rider. I'm reasonably sure that a just God would make sure of his accusations before making them.
This is why I suggested that Lou runs any posts he finds questionable by a Rabbi he trusts before accusing posters of fostering hatred against Jews.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:12:04
In reply to Academic exercise. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 9:05:47
> Hi Lou.
>
> Again, you present a cogent argument. I don't know enough about law to be able to question some of your assertions.
>
> Regarding the equating of religious revelations with mental illness, it was not my intention of producing a definition. Like I said - rightly or wrongly - I think your description of having received divine revelations would prove to be an obstacle for you to overcome in court were you to sue for slander or libel. I'm glad that all of this is only an academic exercise at this point. It is likely that any attempt at litigation by you regarding statements made by others describing you as mentally ill would lead to scrutiny of your mental health. I think you would lose.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote about receiving divine revelation would be some type of obstacle in some way to show defamation by libel.
You know, let us look at a hypothetical example of a cross examination in a libel suit. The defense of the one that is being charged with libel by saying that the plaintiff is "mentally ill", has invoked that it is true that the palintiff is mentally ill by the fact that he states that he has received divine revelation, so thearfore it is true that he is mentally ill. Let us say that the plaintiff is a Christian. Here is the cross examination of the plaintiff:
defense attorny:
Are you a Christian?
Plaintiff:
Yes
defense attorny:
do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?
plaintiff:
yes
defense attorny:
How do you know that is true?
plaintiff:
It has been divinly revealed to me.
defense attorny:
Your honor, I demand a dismissal here because this man is mentally ill because he says that it has been revealed to him by divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ. He is insane and this proves it.
Now do you see a little bit more into what an accusation that someone is "mentally ill" can do as harm to a person?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
Is the Rider God? Did he charge you with a mission directly to Babble, or did you take that mission on yourself? Did the Rider give you specific instructions? Does he have ongoing conversations with you about your progress here? How do you understand on a day by day basis how he feels about your posts? Does he tell you how to interpret Babblers' posts, or is that your own interpretation?
Do you understand your mission to be to save Babblers from the shackles of addiction to psych meds? Or do you consider it to be to save them from the Lake of Fire? Does addiction put one in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't the Lake of Fire be reserved for the truly wicked?
I could be mistaken. It's been a while since you spoke of your vision. Are Babblers concerned with the lake of fire at all? And wasn't there a boneyard beyond the lake of fire?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:39:18
In reply to Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
If you'd rather not answer, do you or anyone else have a link to the series of posts you made about the vision before you were forced to stop because of the civility implications of the lake of fire and the bones?
It's a shame that the civility guidelines make Babble just not the right venue for sharing your entire vision. Would it be possible to set up a personal blog? Don't they have them for very little money? Then you could write the entire thing there, and offer a link to anyone who wished to Babblemail you for it.
Then you could follow the civility guidelines *and* fulfill your mission from the Rider.
I also think my other suggestion might work. Go ahead and write about the lake of fire and the boneyard. But whenever you would explain how Babblers will end up there unless they repent (for example, I don't yet know the relation of Babblers in the vision), you could simply say "If you want to know who is in the lake of fire, please babblemail me". It might even get up people's curiosity and make them want to babblemail you.
I think there are better ways to go about fulfilling your mission. Perhaps if we understood your mission, we could help you so that your message could be better heard. People aren't terribly receptive when they're feeling attacked. As you might know from your own feelings right now. It doesn't guarantee that they'll follow your vision of course. But surely it would be better to have less animosity?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:48:42
In reply to Re: Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:39:18
You might be afraid to post such a personal revelation here. But I think it might be a good choice. I'm thinking people might be far less likely to ridicule your beliefs about the Rider than your statements about psychiatric medication. They might wish you to take them to the religion board, of course. And I'm guessing that the board in general would oppose any ridicule of the Rider or your vision.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:50:12
In reply to Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
> I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
>
> Is the Rider God? Did he charge you with a mission directly to Babble, or did you take that mission on yourself? Did the Rider give you specific instructions? Does he have ongoing conversations with you about your progress here? How do you understand on a day by day basis how he feels about your posts? Does he tell you how to interpret Babblers' posts, or is that your own interpretation?
>
> Do you understand your mission to be to save Babblers from the shackles of addiction to psych meds? Or do you consider it to be to save them from the Lake of Fire? Does addiction put one in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't the Lake of Fire be reserved for the truly wicked?
>
> I could be mistaken. It's been a while since you spoke of your vision. Are Babblers concerned with the lake of fire at all? And wasn't there a boneyard beyond the lake of fire?D,
Is this the post?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20111110/msgs/1002289.html
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 10:54:48
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
> Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou?
It is not necessary for me to use any words at all. Sorry, but the stigma of mental illness stops with me. I have my own agendas, and challenging the stigma to be found in the use of the words "mentally ill" is one of them. I would be curious to know what words you would substitute for the term "mental illness".
> I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
That's his problem to resolve. He doesn't have to read any of my posts. This is a familiar piece of advice that I offer to anyone who becomes upset by my writings.
I have not called Lou Pilder mentally ill, by the way. My concern with his mental health includes the stress that he might be subjecting himself to in the execution of his self-described mission.
> If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
Another mission? Why should such a thing be necessary? What might one conclude were they not to be presented with this information? Do you think that someone might confuse his postings as being the product of mental illness?
I guess we have allowed this thread to drift away from the goal of my initial post. I would prefer that Lou Pilder not be ridiculed for his posted views regarding psychiatric drugs. I prefer that no one be ridiculed about anything. I don't think that challenging another person's opinion and performing fact checks represents ridicule.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:55:18
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:50:12
It has a bit about it. But what I'm talking about is a series of posts you did not long after you came to Babble. It was intended as a series.
As I recall, you described how the Rider approached you, and the journey up to the lake of fire. There you stopped for a determination of the civility of the lake of fire. And since Dr. Bob's civility guidelines only allowed the positive views of religion (i.e. God says you'll have eternal life if you follow me.) rather than negative views (God says that if you don't follow me, you won't have eternal life.), you felt you couldn't continue.
I'm trying to figure out ways for you to continue with the Gates. (Is that right? Weren't gates involved?)
It would likely need to be on the Faith Board though, since it's more related to Faith.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:01:47
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 10:54:48
To object to incivility and counter it is one thing. I intend to do that myself. But you'll never convince him of your point of view. And to try just hurts you, and the peacefulness of the board. I tried myself, and have given up entirely.
I fear that often people see Lou's posts as the result of maliciousness. Perhaps I'm wrong. But people respond as if he's intentionally setting out to upset them. I think it might be helpful to point out his actual motivations. In this culture, people might consider that indicative of mental illness. In other cultures, it likely would not have been perceived that way. However people perceive it, whether as a mission from God or a delusion, I think it might lead to less on board discord to understand Lou's motivations.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:22:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:55:18
> It has a bit about it. But what I'm talking about is a series of posts you did not long after you came to Babble. It was intended as a series.
>
> As I recall, you described how the Rider approached you, and the journey up to the lake of fire. There you stopped for a determination of the civility of the lake of fire. And since Dr. Bob's civility guidelines only allowed the positive views of religion (i.e. God says you'll have eternal life if you follow me.) rather than negative views (God says that if you don't follow me, you won't have eternal life.), you felt you couldn't continue.
>
> I'm trying to figure out ways for you to continue with the Gates. (Is that right? Weren't gates involved?)
>
> It would likely need to be on the Faith Board though, since it's more related to Faith.D,
The God that I give service and worship to, which is the same God that the Jews also do, has revealed to me that there is God's wrath as well as God's blessings.
There is a revealing to me that the wrath of this God is like a wine-press. I know the one that treads the wine-press and He has reveald to me a way for those in the press to be freed and not be one in The Grapes of Wrath. What I wanted to post here is positive because it is about being freed from addiction and death. The prohibition to me from Mr Hsiung concerned what this God prescribes to those that use mind-altering drugs, or panders them to others, or manufactures them ,or traffics in them in any way and such. The The Lake of Fire is also involved in the wrath of this God. It has been revealed to me how one escapes the Lake of Fire as to that they would not be harmed by it. The prohibititions by Mr Hsiung prevent me from posting here concerning that.
Now be advised, that what has been revealed to me concerning that lake of fire is not the same as what popular Christiandom groups purport. And if I was allowed to post what is being suppressed here to me by Mr Hsiung, I think that lives could be saved, addiction and suffereing from mind-altering drugs could be avoided and the frightening aspect of that taking a mind-altering drug that is given to you by a psychiatrist/doctor could cause you to have a life-ruining condition or addiction or death, would not be in the minds of those that are given those drugs that a psychiatrist can legally give you, because they would not be taking them into their bodies and minds.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:30:29
In reply to Lou's reply-wynprez » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:22:27
Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wynprez » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:30:29
> Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
>
> It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
>
> The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
>
> Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
>
> Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
>
> You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
>
> Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
>
> We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
D,
Please do not insult the God that I give service and worship to by calling that God one that is not understandng. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to insult that God here but that does not annul the fact that insulting another's God can inflict emotional pain upon that person when it is allowed by the owner of the forum, that has rules against such as being uncivil, to stand, and could be seen as hatred directed to the person that their God is the God being insulted.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:59:10
In reply to Lou's response-antygwszm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
You're right, Lou. I've no desire to insult your God.
I've moved the discussion to the faith board.
Here's a link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1030075.html
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:23:40
In reply to Lou's response-antygwszm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
> > Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
> >
> > It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
> >
> > The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
> >
> > Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
> >
> > Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
> >
> > You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
> >
> > Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
> >
> > We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
> D,
> Please do not insult the God that I give service and worship to by calling that God one that is not understandng. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to insult that God here but that does not annul the fact that insulting another's God can inflict emotional pain upon that person when it is allowed by the owner of the forum, that has rules against such as being uncivil, to stand, and could be seen as hatred directed to the person that their God is the God being insulted.
> LouLou, how exactly did we get to the point where mind-altering drugs are allowed to be pandered on such a public forum. Who are the responsible parties we could identify. Doctors? Drug companies? What are their primary motivations? Are they "evil"? (Is Dr. Bob evil?) What would "evil" mean in this context? Do they knowingly defy the (Christian?) Judaic God. Are they motivated by some other entity (Satan, Ball, The Mighty Thor, etc.) And what are the origins of perceived mental illness? These same alternative entities? Sin (against the Hebrew God.) Who put us in this wine-press that we can't get out of without giving up our mind altering drugs? If God is not uncaring, then the responsibility must fall to some other entity. In terms of revelation, is it possible to be given the cure without first understanding the disease? We must know what alternate agencies are involved if we are to begin negotiations (agressive negotiations, if need be) to allow you to communicate your revelation.
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:39:39
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
> Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou? I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
>
> If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
>
> Did I get that right, Lou? Did the Rider send you to Babble for that purpose? I'd really like to know, in order to understand you better. Besides, I've never particularly minded apocalyptic religious visions.
>
> Right or wrong, religious experiences of that type are usually seen as a sign of mental illness in this society. I always say that I'd make a pretty rotten prophet, because I'd be most likely to take myself to a mental institution upon receiving a visitation of that sort.
>
> But if the facts as Lou understands them are made known to those who seem to attribute negative motivations to Lou's behavior, people can draw their own conclusions about his negative views of psych meds, and his attributing a good deal to antisemetism, and his conclusions about the motivations of posters and Dr. Bob?
>
> Not that I think his charge by the Rider to minister to this group absolves him from the responsibility of being a civil member of this community. I'd tend to think that he'd have a greater responsibility since he would be, in effect, a representative of the Rider. I'm reasonably sure that a just God would make sure of his accusations before making them.
>
> This is why I suggested that Lou runs any posts he finds questionable by a Rabbi he trusts before accusing posters of fostering hatred against Jews.This is similar to how Foucault defined mental illness. I've certainly forgot the exact wording, but it's more of an "unclarity" than irrationality. The delusional are still very rational (he uses the example of a patient who thought he was made of glass. He acted very rationally despite this untruth, e.g. moving very carefully, trying to avoid contact with other objects that could shatter him etc.) The role of the doctor is not to make the person "sane", but rather to bring them to a clarity of themselves (the metaphor of "light" was heavily used.) One method of cure he spoke of was that at one point doctors would go as far as theatrically indulging the patient's illness so they patient may gradually come to see their own absurdity.
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 12:49:01
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:01:47
> To object to incivility and counter it is one thing. I intend to do that myself. But you'll never convince him of your point of view.
Which of my many points of view are you referring to here?
> And to try just hurts you,
Dinah - you don't know that.
> and the peacefulness of the board.
If my posts remain civil, but manage to hurt the peacefulness of the board, why would you lobby me to discontinue such behavior?
> I tried myself, and have given up entirely.
It is not my objective to change Lou so much as it is to offer challenges to his contentions and conclusions regarding the use of psychiatric drugs in the practice of psychiatry. I consider my agenda here to be in the best interests of the health of the board. I could be wrong, of course.
> I fear that often people see Lou's posts as the result of maliciousness. Perhaps I'm wrong. But people respond as if he's intentionally setting out to upset them.I can understand how people might react that way. It would be like my calling Lou Pilder mentally ill. If I were to do so, it would not be out of malice. However, I am under the impression that Lou would think that it was. He might even conclude that I am intentionally setting out to upset him. I am not.
> I think it might be helpful to point out his actual motivations. In this culture, people might consider that indicative of mental illness. In other cultures, it likely would not have been perceived that way.
>
> However people perceive it, whether as a mission from God or a delusion, I think it might lead to less on board discord to understand Lou's motivations.It does not take an explanation of perceived divine revelations to assert that Lou Pilder's intentions are honorable rather than malicious. Do you think it possible that Lou has delusions, or is it only other people who do? Would it be uncivil to suggest such a thing?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 12:50:25
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:39:39
Sometimes the truth of a person's beliefs don't matter as much as understanding the person's actions in terms of their beliefs.
It's possible to show interest in a person's beliefs without trying to change them. And what possible way would we have of changing anyone's beliefs?
At this point, I'm just trying to understand so as to consider what possibilities (if any) there may be to ending the discord that currently exists on the board. I just want Babble to be a more pleasant place to be.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.