![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 27. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:16:54
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you make a determination as to if it is OK, or not OK, to write 4 consecutive posts by one poster as it is seen on the following boards.
Faith board:
Jai Narayan starting onOctober 5, 2004
Social Board:
Gabbix2 starting on October 9,2004
karen_kay starting on October 9,2204
Trucker, starting on October 10, 2004
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:25:30
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:16:54
Dr. Hsiung,
I would like to also include another group of posts that are more than 3 consecutive posts by the same poster on the social board by [mystic]that starts on October 9,2004 for the same determination to be made as inthe previous request by me.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 9:41:32
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:16:54
Trucker was responding to four different posts and I believe this is permitted.
verne
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 9:43:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos-2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:25:30
Mystic was responding to four different posters and I believe this is permitted.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 10:44:27
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos-2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 9:25:30
Dr. Hsiung,
The more than 3 consecutive posts to relpy to more than 3 posters in succession is to be an exception according to another poster. If that is your determination, I can see that there would be a need to post 4 consecutive posts to reply to 4 consecutive posters. .
But I feel that I need to respond to more than 3 consecutive {concepts} in my writings, these concepts, to me, could be considerd to be like responding to people as in the exception, if it is an exception, for the poster to reply to more than 3 people.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 10:56:21
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos-3, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 10:44:27
Dr. Hsing,
Let us suppose that I was going to write my point of view, which would come from the Jewish perspective, of the doctrine of "replacement theology " as a refutation on the faith board. As of now, I would have to not post more than 3 consecutive posts. But if there are different concepts in the doctrine of replacement theology that I was writng about, could not I write three posts on one aspect of the doctrine and then 3 posts on another aspect of the doctrin as if I was responding to different people?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 13:40:38
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos-3B, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 10:56:21
Dr.Hsiung,
I am requesting that you grant me an exception to the 3-post rule to write a refutation to what is known as "replacement theology".
I would need 100 posts to do this because of the restraints placed upon me in your rules on the faith board.
Your rule would have the potential to prohibit me from writing the foundation of my faith, jewdaism, for what you have written on the faith board in your "Guidlines and Exceptions", and "Specific Examples". When one clicks on those links offered, the pages that come up have the potential for one to think that after reading both of them and putting them together that;
A. The foundation of my faith is stated.
B. That that foundation of my faith puts down those of other faiths.
C. It would be in your thinking that it will be the best for the community as a whole that I do not write the foundation of my faith.
D. There are posts on the faith board that write about jesus, which is the foundation of christianity and some of those posts are allowed. Just one example is that a post writes that one of the top worst reasons for an organized religion is to foster an agenda that is not centered on Christ. My faith, Jewdaism is fostered on an agenda not centered on Christ. IMO, I feel that that statement in question here that will be in the link below, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings along with that the statement in question is concerning the foundation of Christianity and the post is allowed and mine would not be.
You see, I would have to use 100 posts to be able to write my refutation because I could not post the foundation of my faith, jewdaism, in doing so. If I was to be allowed to post, lets say, 7 posts, I feel that I could write a refutation of replacement theology from my point of view, which is from the jewish perspective, without mentioning the foundation of my faith.
Below is the link to the faith board and to the post that I referred to.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/37830.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith
Posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 16:24:47
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-4conscpos-3C, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 13:40:38
Dear Lou,
You wrote, "You see, I would have to use 100 posts to be able to write my refutation."
The faith board is for support, not refutation. You are always free to write about your faith within the guidelines, and you are also free to ignore what other posters have written. If I understand Dr. Bob's guidelines correctly, however, you are not free to refute another's beliefs on the faith board.
In practice, this means that we have the following three options when we read something on the faith board with which we disagree:
1.) We can start a new thread stating our own beliefs (without reference to the other poster and without telling others what they should or should not believe);
2.) We can respond directly to the poster by writing something like, "Please review the three links at the top of the page for specific examples of what is and is not acceptable to be posted here" (without further comment); or,
3.) We can choose not to respond at all and move on to another thread or post to which we can respond in a supportive manner.
I understand and sympathize with the urge to refute certain statements of faith or belief, but this is not the place to do it. Not responding at all is often the kindest and most supportive thing we can do under these guidelines. It's especially beneficial if we remember to offer the benefit of the doubt to one another and to practice forgiveness.
With warm regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 16:48:01
In reply to Re: Tolerance and Support » Lou Pilder, posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 16:24:47
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 16:49:46
In reply to Re: Tolerance and Support » Lou Pilder, posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 16:24:47
Mark H.
It is good to hear from you . I consider that when you respond to a post, that you give it great importance because I do not see you responding much except in these type of situations.
But try and see it my way. I have been here for many years and have read numerous posts that have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I try to use the administrative board to request the moderator to consider to delete the post in question, or to post himself some sort of statement that would indicate that the post is not one that falls within the goals of the forum. I am not looking for the posterto be expelled, but to have some sort of rephrasing of the statement in question. I do not consider the posts that have the potential,IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings, which also has the potential, IMO, to put down those of other faiths including jewdaism to be allowed to just stand . I feel that to let those type of posts stand is unsupportive.
If you have seen some of my recent threads, they are my opening statement, my closing remarks, and the body of support for my request to the administration. I guess that the word "refutation" could be changed to something else.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 17:01:16
In reply to Re: Tolerance and Support » Lou Pilder, posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 16:24:47
Mark,
Very well put. I can't add anything to it.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:18:48
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H. » Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 16:49:46
Mark H.
You wrote, [...100 posts to write...].
Well, I now think that I could take the 100 posts and have someone help me in putting them into 7 very long posts, but not 3.
You wrote,[...not free to refute another's belief on the faith board...].
I did intend to start a new thread and tell why the jews are not replaced by anyone in the eyes of their God . I just gave one post that has been posted as an example , the one that had,[... top 10 worst reasons for organized religion...] and then in the list,[...to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ...].
It is not that I want to refute that statement, for as as Jew my faith is fostering an agenda that is not centered in Christ,and I do not feel that the agenda of my faith, Jewdaism, is to be posted in a list of [..."worst" reasons for an organized religion...]but to have the administration either delete the statement in question or attatch some kind of statement that the statement in question is not acceptable to be posted here.
I disagree if you are saying that I should tell a poster that something that they wrote is not acceptable, for I believe that it is an admimistrative function and that is why I request a determination from the administration for that.
I have a master's in school administration and I base my reasoning on that concept. Perhaps here one can tell another that they are posting something that is not acceptable, but I feel that is for the administration to do.
So if you look at some of my recent threads, they are as a result of my request to the administration to make a dtermination as to if a post is acceptable here or not. That is what I would like to post.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 17:22:25
In reply to Re: Tolerance and Support » Mark H., posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 17:01:16
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:22
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:18:48
Mark H,
You wrote,[...I understand and sympathize with the ...to refute certain statements of faith...]
You gave three alternatives.
One is to start a new thread stating my belief. I do not feel that that way would be something that I would want to do. For to do so, I would likely want to post the foundation of my faith which is, IMO, not permitted for me to do so here. The opening page of the faith board has links that give examples and converstaions that IMO have the potential for me to think that I would be putting down those of other faiths if I was to post the foundation of my faith. I feel that if I was to do so, then I could be in the area of [...two wrongs do not make a right...] and that is another reason that I request a determination by the administration as to the acceptability or not of the particular statement. I do not want to write others things that they could consider as wanting to confront anyone here, and I feel that your first alternative has the potential for that to happen, even though, I guess, someone could do so without that happening.
So your first altenative I do not feel comfortable with. I would like to work under the administrative board that welcomes members to state what they think could be an improvment to thecommunity and I believe that thecommunity could be improved if I was to make a thread that had my opening statement in several parts, then my body of support to my opening statement and then my closing statements. This means that I need more than 3 posts to do such and I am requesting that I be given an exemption to use more than 3 posts and then it would be like my other threads which, I guess are not really refutations, but appeals.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 18:02:26
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:22
Mark H,
Your second alternative would be to respond directly to the poster for the poster to review the [...top of the page for...examples of what is and is not acceptable ...].
I feel that for me to do that could have the potential to be confrontational. I preferr to request a determination from the administration to make decisions on what is or is not acceptable for ther could be different ways to see the statement in question.
Let us look at one statement that is now posted on the faith board that I have requested a determination for. It states,[...When our earth completes its purpose...it will be presented to the Father...and Christ will move to God's spot as Lord of all...].
I have requested that the administration make a determination for acceptability. I think that it is the function of the administration to do so.
Can you see it my way? I am the jewish poster seeing these type of statements that have the potential in my opinion to arouse antisemitic feelings and to have others see that the statement has the potential to put down my faith as a jew and other faiths as well. It is only if the administration allows the statement in question to stand that I would want to possibly appeal. I am turning to the administration for help. Who can I turn to if not the administration?
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 18:32:31
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 18:02:26
Aren't there parts to any religion that are antithetical to other religions? To use an extreme example: what if a wican posted their beliefs and christians found even the simplest expression of their faith "unchristian".
Let's find the many ways our faiths are similar and not more ways they are different. Let's embrace the "un"different.
verne
P.S. Hi Jai and thanks for the encouragement.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 18:40:24
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:22
Mark H,
You wrote,[I understand and sympathize ...to refute certain statements of faith...but this is not the place to do it...not responding {at all} is often...].
The administrative board has been the board for those to request administrative determinations. I am requesting only for these statements that I have posted about to be determined as acceptable or not. I feel that for me to ignore the statements in question and use your alternative of [...not responding {at all}...], to these statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to put down my jewish faith and my God or other faiths, would for me ,IMO, to be a greater offense to my God and to others here that have their God put down. I have asked for administrative determinations on statements about other faiths besides my faith of judaism. I just appealed to the administration to have statements by Jean Rousseau somehow determined to be unacceptable here for the statement put down Christians. and because if I did ,[...not respond ...at all..], then the administration could not have heard my plea, and the administration heard my plea and attended to those stements and now the board is a better place. I am not a member of christiandom , but I feel that we all have a responsibility to ask the administrration to attend to posts or statements that have the potential to put down those of other faiths.
please do not post to me.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 19:24:10
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 17:18:48
Dear Lou,
It's good to hear from you as well. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I agree with you that we shouldn't "tell a poster that something that they wrote is not acceptable," and we need to be sensitive about pointing them toward the guidelines -- if we're not sure, I think it's better to remain silent.
However, part of giving others the benefit of the doubt involves allowing the possibility that they are simply unaware of the guidelines and examples, especially on the faith board.
In essence, Dr. Bob has asked us to let go of refuting the beliefs of others, even if we find them potentially offensive or misleading. This means that even if a person is practicing an "ism" that affects us personally, we are not to accuse them of it, contradict their point of view in an unsupportive way, or even to respond, unless we can do so very carefully with a supportive statement about our own beliefs -- and without derogatory reference to theirs.
There are those who believe we have a moral obligation to speak out against something we find offensive or misleading or unfair. However, Dr. Bob has made it clear that this is not the place to do that. Here, we must refrain from criticizing even that which we find deplorable in the statements of others.
Once we accept this, we are free from having to defend our point of view at all. Instead, we can focus on all the positive, supportive beliefs and experiences we would like to share with others. And, it's an opportunity for us to practice forgiveness and tolerance towards one another as well.
A few days ago, you wrote, "So go on and sing a new song. A song of laughter. A song of joy... Today you could be in Paradise." That warmed my heart with appreciation, and it is the reason I have written these notes to you today.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 19:34:53
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 18:40:24
> please do not post to me.
> Lou PilderDear Lou,
I posted the above before refreshing my screen and reading your last post. I apologize for posting to you after you requested me not to.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 20:17:36
In reply to Respecting Your Request » Lou Pilder, posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 19:34:53
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 20:38:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Mark H. » Lou Pilder, posted by Mark H. on October 11, 2004, at 19:24:10
Mark H,
You wrote,[...I agree ...that we shouldn't "tell a poster something that they wrote is not acceptable,"...if we are not sure, I think it's better to remain silent...].
My reasoning in asking the administration to make a detrmination as to being acceptable or not is based upon many different aspects of administrative theory. One of which is the concept of {past practice}. If you look back into the past posts, you will see that I had already requested determinations from the administration , and in some cases about the same poster, so that I do not feel that the poster is not aware of the guidlines here. And if they are not, I feel that it is the administration's decision on the determination and the possibility of the poster being unaware of the guidlines. I have asked for only rephrasing to be applied to my requests if the request for determination is affirmed by the administration to be unacceptable. I believe in forgivness, and I am not asking for anyone to be expelled here. But forgivness to me does not mean to allow one to post something that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or put down those of other faiths and let it go. I have objected to the administration, sometimes off this board, to posts that IMo put down the Witnesses for Jahovah, and Islamic people. I belive that if I did not ask for the determination that letting it go undetermined could have the potential to cause further posts of the same nature for other's faiths and I do not believe that allowing continuance of those type of posts contribute to supportivness.
I am not criticizing the statements of others. I am asking the administration to make a determination as to if a statement is acceptable on this forum or not. That is why I do not post to them, but to the administration, so that I am not critisizing , but attempting to be heard, which is what I understand the administrative board is for, to be heard. There are others here now asking to be heard. One now asks the administration to be heard named alexander_k. And there are others.
I feel that my requests for determination are at least as important as others requests for administrtaive response.
You see, there is another aspect of this. That is that what statement(s) the administration leaves as acceptable, that could have the potential for others to think that the administration endorses the statement. If a statement has a request for a determination from the administration, then one could find out if the statement is endorsed by the administration.
There was just recently a thread by me to determine if a part of a poem had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. After many posts, it was determined that there was a part of the poem that had the potential to put down those of the faith that has their God the God of the old testament, which includes me and Jewdaism and others. If I had not requested the determination, I could not have been heard. And then the possibility of others thinking that the administration endorsed the statetment in question could remain. And if it remained , then I as a jew that has his God as the God of the old testament could be subjected to defamation. I do not condsider defamation of other's God to be supportive. And the administration agreed with me. And the administration posted that so that I could have the defamation, which to me is a Badge of Shame thatI do not want to have to ware, taken away from me.
I want to request that the administration make determinations about statements that I feel have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I feel put down and defamed by those type of statements and there is the potential to have othere think that I am doing something wrong if I am a jew when a statement has the potential to put down the god of the jews. I do not want to ware any type of Badge of Shame.
Please do not post to me.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:06:58
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H's reply to Lou. » Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2004, at 20:38:04
> I am requesting that you make a determination as to if it is OK, or not OK, to write 4 consecutive posts by one poster as it is seen on the following boards.
> Faith board:
> Jai Narayan starting onOctober 5, 2004
> Social Board:
> Gabbix2 starting on October 9,2004
> karen_kay starting on October 9,2204Could you post one link to each of those sets of posts?
> I am requesting that you grant me an exception to the 3-post rule to write a refutation to what is known as "replacement theology".
> I would need 100 posts to do this because of the restraints placed upon me in your rules on the faith board.What if you started a new thread and limited yourself to 1 post/day? Like a diary. It would of course still be important not to put down the beliefs of others, etc.
> Mark H,
> You wrote,[...I agree ...that we shouldn't "tell a poster something that they wrote is not acceptable,"...if we are not sure, I think it's better to remain silent...]. ...
> Please do not post to me.
> Lou PilderJust a reminder, if you post to someone, they have the option of replying...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 12, 2004, at 7:42:13
In reply to Re: Lou's request and response, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:06:58
Because it really isn't. It's more that I tend to ream you when I think you're doing something wrong. It seems only fair to also give you positive feedback.
It appears as though you put some thought into this and are offering a compromise that tries to balance the goals of you and the goals of the poster, while being respectful to both yourself and the poster. I have no idea what Lou will think of the suggestion, but I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate the effort you put into it.
> > I am requesting that you grant me an exception to the 3-post rule to write a refutation to what is known as "replacement theology".
> > I would need 100 posts to do this because of the restraints placed upon me in your rules on the faith board.
>
> What if you started a new thread and limited yourself to 1 post/day? Like a diary. It would of course still be important not to put down the beliefs of others, etc.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 2:18:09
In reply to I hope this doesn't come across as idealization » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 12, 2004, at 7:42:13
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2004, at 21:30:10
In reply to Re: Lou's request and response, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 7:06:58
Dr.Hsiung,
You wrote, [...what if you posted one post a day in a new thread like a diary....]?
I do not see how that could help me to write in the style that I use. Could you give me some more infomation ?
Lou Pilder
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.