Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 306703

Shown: posts 45 to 69 of 180. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-nevrsieghnver? Lou PIlder

Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2008, at 12:26:24

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-nevrsieghnver? gardenergirl, posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 8:16:22


> gardenergirl,
>
> E. Is it possible, in your opinion, that I could be in another state?

Unless you're at home, it's possible you are in another state. The internet is practically everywhere now. ;)

> F. other good and just explanations of your post to me here.

My post came from my mind, my heart, and my experiences. I don't think that can be easily measured or operationalized, and I wouldn't try.

That's all I've got on this matter at the moment, Lou. This is not a new topic for us to converse about, and my feelings and thoughts about it are not new either. I'm obviously not going to affect your opinions, and I wouldn't bet on mine changing all that much anytime soon, either, though you never know. Oops, I said "never" again!

Regards,

gg

 

Lou's request for clarification-rvrnafica

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 11:39:35

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rvrnegpt Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on July 24, 2008, at 10:29:53

> > > > > > Lou, I feel hurt and incredibly offended reading a comparison between a discrimination case based on "unpopular ethnic origin" and what deputies do or don't do here at Babble.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you believe, in your heart of hearts, that any one of us, or Dr. Bob, treats posters differently based on ethnicity, race, religion, etc., well, I am simply flabbergasted, and I don't know what else to do but tell you how utterly and completely mistaken you truly are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been reminded from time to time while I've been a deputy that one may have to "grow a thick(er) skin" to withstand some of what may be said here. I think that's right and that I have managed, overall, to do that. But something like this penetrates, to the very core of who I am, and as I said, I feel pain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am so very sorry you think and feel this way, Lou. I really am.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- 10derHeart
> > > > >
> > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> > > >
> > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > > > Friends,
> > > > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > > > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> > > Lou
> > > PS
> > > the correction to the link above is:
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...utt*rly and compl*tly m*st*k*n you tr*ly are...].
> The generally accepted meaning of {utterly} could be to mean that what is in consideration is {absolute}, having no exception, or {unquestionable}.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could reply to me with your clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. What facts did you use, if any, to conclude that I am utterly and truly XXXXXX?
> B. could you include in any response to my request here what could be seen in the threads in the links that I have cited in this thread along with the following thread? Here is a link to one post of that thread.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402743.html
> Lou
>
>
Friends,
If you are considering responding here , I am requesting that you consider the following in regards to this topic under discussion here.
I could explain what the bible verse in question means from my perspective, due to that the translation uses a word, {but}, that is not in the Greek that that bible uses to translate the verse. In order for me to explain it though, I would need to post the foundation of my faith in relation to a revelation, which is what is the foundation of that I believe it because it is from a revelation.
One of the issue is {belief}, and if this can not be seen from your reading of the thread, you could email me if you like for further explanation from me and I will use the foundation of my faith, which is the same as the foundation of Judaism.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743754.html
Lou

 

Lou's request for cosideration-ighbhelev

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 21:27:37

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-rvrnafica, posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 11:39:35

> > > > > > > Lou, I feel hurt and incredibly offended reading a comparison between a discrimination case based on "unpopular ethnic origin" and what deputies do or don't do here at Babble.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you believe, in your heart of hearts, that any one of us, or Dr. Bob, treats posters differently based on ethnicity, race, religion, etc., well, I am simply flabbergasted, and I don't know what else to do but tell you how utterly and completely mistaken you truly are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been reminded from time to time while I've been a deputy that one may have to "grow a thick(er) skin" to withstand some of what may be said here. I think that's right and that I have managed, overall, to do that. But something like this penetrates, to the very core of who I am, and as I said, I feel pain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am so very sorry you think and feel this way, Lou. I really am.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- 10derHeart
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...i am sorry that you YYYY and XXXX this way...].
> > > > > > In the post that you responded to me about I do not believe that I posted what I thought or felt.
> > > > > > The post is about {significant time lag} from a request to the response to the request. It did not matter as to if those in the example received the meals or not and I did not write about that. The issue is the significant time lag.
> > > > > > I did post somewhere here that even if a response from the administration came after the reminders, the significant time lag still happened. There was a post indicating that a significant time lag could happen as a result of a poster's fault of not having their feature on. That is not the case with me for I followed the procedure given and have the feature on, the time lag is not my fault.
> > > > > > The post was about additional conditions that I have told you that I will not be subjected to over and over and I am still asked to send them again and that emails to Mr. Hsiung can not all be responded to. This is in regards to that if one wants a quicker response that they can email Mr. Hsiung. I have done that. I have followed the procedure and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word and the emails were before he posted about not replying to all emails. If he was to reply to my emails to him that were before his post then this situstaion could be attended to. And if requests are sent by the deputies to Mr. Hsiung, and he does not reply to them, then I am asking for someone else to reply to them, maybe an impartial moderator from a university other than U of Chicago.
> > > > > > If I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts then I could attend to any post here as I have like the one from Mark Morford's poem and the statement by Jean Kacques Rousseau and others. I do not have any idea how my posting to uncover what now is plainly visible caused anyone to not post tthere or anywhere else.
> > > > > > Since I can not also use the notification feature for those of 3 requests in the past, that limits me from using he notification for them. There are a few of them.
> > > > > > The aspect of the example of the principle also brought out that members here see that I post repeated reminders concerning notifications and requests for clarification about the rules and policy and the TOS here. The time lag of those reminders has an effect according to psychologists.
> > > > > > The example was to show what could happen. We are aware of what has happened in historical parallels where things were done on the basis that the people in power said that it did not matter to the larger part of the group and that what is good for the whole is what matters. The arguments for slavery included that argument. The argument for segregation included that argument. The argument for infanticide included that argument. The argument for genocide included that argument.
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests for clarification.rationales and such, but he did say that if one wanted to know them, to just ask. I took him at his word.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > Well, I am part of the whole here,
> > > > >
> > > > > 10derHeart,
> > > > > You wrote,[...treats posters diffferntly...mistaken you XXX are...(sorry)you XXX and XXX this way...].
> > > > > Friends,
> > > > > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links here to examine the threads and consider the content in any reply that you may post here.
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > > > > If you could look at the threads, I then ask that you email me if you would like more infomation concerning this topic for there have been rules made here that are not in the FAQ that could mean that I could not post some things here concerning this topic. I have an assembly of posts in relation to this topic that I could share with you if you like.
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > Here is a link that i would like for you to bring up a thread that has a post where Mr. Hsiung threatens me with expulsion if I was to post that I have been revealed to me supernaturally a commandment from my God to me that XXX (the foundation of Judaism). The express purpose of the faith board is to post concerning god and the supernatural.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html
> > > > Lou
> > > > PS
> > > > the correction to the link above is:
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being a respondent in this thread, I would like for you to consider clicking on the following link and using what you see in relation to any respone that you may post here. If you would like further infomation concerning this, you could email me if you like.
> > > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8795.html
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...utt*rly and compl*tly m*st*k*n you tr*ly are...].
> > The generally accepted meaning of {utterly} could be to mean that what is in consideration is {absolute}, having no exception, or {unquestionable}.
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could reply to me with your clarification that I am requesting, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > A. What facts did you use, if any, to conclude that I am utterly and truly XXXXXX?
> > B. could you include in any response to my request here what could be seen in the threads in the links that I have cited in this thread along with the following thread? Here is a link to one post of that thread.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402743.html
> > Lou
> >
> >
> Friends,
> If you are considering responding here , I am requesting that you consider the following in regards to this topic under discussion here.
> I could explain what the bible verse in question means from my perspective, due to that the translation uses a word, {but}, that is not in the Greek that that bible uses to translate the verse. In order for me to explain it though, I would need to post the foundation of my faith in relation to a revelation, which is what is the foundation of that I believe it because it is from a revelation.
> One of the issue is {belief}, and if this can not be seen from your reading of the thread, you could email me if you like for further explanation from me and I will use the foundation of my faith, which is the same as the foundation of Judaism.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743754.html
> Lou
Friends,
If you are considering responding here in this thread, I am requesting that you consider the following.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/742595.html
Lou

 

Lou's request for cosideration-dnialfala

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 27, 2008, at 11:24:49

In reply to Lou's request for cosideration-ighbhelev, posted by Lou PIlder on July 25, 2008, at 21:27:37

Friends,
If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
Lou

 

Re: Please Advise

Posted by Sigismund on July 28, 2008, at 4:40:26

In reply to Re: Please Advise Dinah, posted by Dena on July 17, 2008, at 20:10:49

>People could feel put down if its suggested that they might be missing the point of heaven:

I'm on record as saying I not only don't see the virtues of heaven but that it is a petit bourgeois event I would prefer to miss.

>I have seen that Lou has been singled out, for being who he is, and sharing as he shares, with people being frustrated with him, rude to him, and getting away with things far worse than what he's censored for.

Like me, for example.

 

Lou's request for consideration-afmgtheconsqnt Lou PIlder

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 13:30:39

In reply to Lou's request for cosideration-dnialfala, posted by Lou PIlder on July 27, 2008, at 11:24:49

> Friends,
> If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
> http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
> http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
> http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
> Lou

Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links to see the fallacy of [...Affirming the consequent...].
I think that if you look at that before you post, that it may be easier to see that fallacy if it comes up.
Affirming the consequent usually goes along with arguments in the form if this than that.
here are two links and the second one could be used for looking into other fallacies that may be seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming-_the _consequent
http://www.don_lindsay_archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
Lou

 

corrected links--afmgtheconsqnt

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 14:30:39

In reply to Lou's request for consideration-afmgtheconsqnt Lou PIlder, posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 13:30:39

> > Friends,
> > If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
> > http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
> > http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
> > http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links to see the fallacy of [...Affirming the consequent...].
> I think that if you look at that before you post, that it may be easier to see that fallacy if it comes up.
> Affirming the consequent usually goes along with arguments in the form if this than that.
> here are two links and the second one could be used for looking into other fallacies that may be seen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming-_the _consequent
> http://www.don_lindsay_archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
> Lou

Friends,
Here are the correted links for [...Affirming the consequent...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
http://www.don-lindsay-archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck? Dena

Posted by Zeba on July 29, 2008, at 21:09:24

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck?, posted by Dena on July 21, 2008, at 20:42:45

Crap; I wasn't on the board then, but to suggest it is okay to slander a group of people because the person has been victimized is just plain ridiculous. So, I was victimized too, but that didn't stop anyone from pulling the plug on me if I said something even slightly negative. I have had things happen to me hear that were given the brush off, but god forbid if I did the same. I would be blocked in a flash. In my experience,things are not always fair here. I also think it is impossible for deputies to be objective. We are all human. I don't think Dr. Bob is all that objective either from what I have seen. So, I don't come here much anymore and certainly would not post about anything personal anymore. I don't need the grief. I just don't pay attention to much here anymore but was asked to take a look at this thread.

You know I am a Unitarian Universalist, and my church is now being targeted by hate groups. Just this weekend the UU church in Knoxville was attacked and but for the heroism of a few, at least 200 would have been killed. Two were killed, and that is two too many.

Zeba

Zeba

 

Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam

Posted by Lou PIlder on July 30, 2008, at 17:00:03

In reply to corrected links--afmgtheconsqnt, posted by Lou PIlder on July 29, 2008, at 14:30:39

> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering responding in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here in relation to fallacies of denial, such as the fallacy of {denying the antecedent or consequent}, red herring, straw man, and other fallacious arguments so as those that may not be aquainted with those fallacies, then they could have a better understanding IMO and be better able to see them if they can be seen.
> > > http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
> > > http://www.answers.com/topic/denying-the-antecedent
> > > http://www.usc.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/CT4Fallacies.html
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered links to see the fallacy of [...Affirming the consequent...].
> > I think that if you look at that before you post, that it may be easier to see that fallacy if it comes up.
> > Affirming the consequent usually goes along with arguments in the form if this than that.
> > here are two links and the second one could be used for looking into other fallacies that may be seen.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming-_the _consequent
> > http://www.don_lindsay_archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> Here are the correted links for [...Affirming the consequent...]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
> http://www.don-lindsay-archives.org/skeptic/arguments.html#consequent
> Lou

Friends,
If you are considering osting in response to the aspects of this thread, I am requesting that you consider the content in the offered link here.
The link goes to describe what is known as the {Agument ad Ignorantam}.
This argument is when he/she says that something must be wrong with what another says because he/she is unwilling to fully consider that what the other says might be true, or is unwilloing to believe evidence which does not support his/her claim. This is also when someone says that they can't believe what the other person says , so it can't be true. this argument is also incurred when one is not permitted to state arguments that give evidence that what he/she claimes might not be true.
Here is a link to {Argument ad Ignorantiam} so that IMO if one aquaints themselves with the fallacy, they could IMO be better able to recognize it if it can be seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Lou

 

Lou's request for consideration-racl

Posted by Lou PIlder on August 1, 2008, at 8:04:48

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck? Dena, posted by Zeba on July 29, 2008, at 21:09:24

> Crap; I wasn't on the board then, but to suggest it is okay to slander a group of people because the person has been victimized is just plain ridiculous. So, I was victimized too, but that didn't stop anyone from pulling the plug on me if I said something even slightly negative. I have had things happen to me hear that were given the brush off, but god forbid if I did the same. I would be blocked in a flash. In my experience,things are not always fair here. I also think it is impossible for deputies to be objective. We are all human. I don't think Dr. Bob is all that objective either from what I have seen. So, I don't come here much anymore and certainly would not post about anything personal anymore. I don't need the grief. I just don't pay attention to much here anymore but was asked to take a look at this thread.
>
> You know I am a Unitarian Universalist, and my church is now being targeted by hate groups. Just this weekend the UU church in Knoxville was attacked and but for the heroism of a few, at least 200 would have been killed. Two were killed, and that is two too many.
>
> Zeba
>
> Zeba

Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the following link and read such so that there could be further understanding IMO of my concerns here and the concerns of other members here that see some of the same things that are the subject of this thread. If you would like to know more concerning this you could email me if you like.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
(there is an underscore between my name and the 1188)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407530.html
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam Lou PIlder

Posted by Zeba on August 4, 2008, at 20:51:05

In reply to Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam, posted by Lou PIlder on July 30, 2008, at 17:00:03

Lou, I am not sure I understand what you are asking, and I am at a total loss as to what you mean. I know what the attachments are about, but I do not understand how this applies to you or your feelings that there is discrimination against you. Can you help me understand what you mean other than to look at Ken Pope's sites and a site that defines fallacy? I am having a really hard time understanding. Sorry.

Zeba

 

Lou's request for consideration-nhonon Zeba

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2008, at 21:31:23

In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam Lou PIlder, posted by Zeba on August 4, 2008, at 20:51:05

> Lou, I am not sure I understand what you are asking, and I am at a total loss as to what you mean. I know what the attachments are about, but I do not understand how this applies to you or your feelings that there is discrimination against you. Can you help me understand what you mean other than to look at Ken Pope's sites and a site that defines fallacy? I am having a really hard time understanding. Sorry.
>
> Zeba

Zeba,
You wrote,[...I do not understand...].
This could come clearer in some respect IMO if one looks at a thread from here. Here is a link to a post in that thread. If you would like to see how that may fit into this discussion, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/681419.html

 

Lou's request for consideration-plnyvzbl?

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2008, at 8:30:00

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck? Dena, posted by Zeba on July 29, 2008, at 21:09:24

> Crap; I wasn't on the board then, but to suggest it is okay to slander a group of people because the person has been victimized is just plain ridiculous. So, I was victimized too, but that didn't stop anyone from pulling the plug on me if I said something even slightly negative. I have had things happen to me hear that were given the brush off, but god forbid if I did the same. I would be blocked in a flash. In my experience,things are not always fair here. I also think it is impossible for deputies to be objective. We are all human. I don't think Dr. Bob is all that objective either from what I have seen. So, I don't come here much anymore and certainly would not post about anything personal anymore. I don't need the grief. I just don't pay attention to much here anymore but was asked to take a look at this thread.
>
> You know I am a Unitarian Universalist, and my church is now being targeted by hate groups. Just this weekend the UU church in Knoxville was attacked and but for the heroism of a few, at least 200 would have been killed. Two were killed, and that is two too many.
>
> Zeba
>
> Zeba

Friends,
If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you consider the generally accepted meanings as to what is anti-Semitism. If you could, then I think that you could be better able to post any response that you are considering here, if any. Here is a list of the generally accepted aspects of what constitutes anti-Semitism.
A. Allegations of sterotyping of a Jew or Jews as a people and calling for a justification of the sterotyping of Jews.
B. Punishing a Jew or Jews for their unique beliefs or for their refusal to accept the claimes of Christianity.
C. Having an attitude or even a policy directed toward a Jew or Jews as a people
D. Placing a restriction on a Jew in a community while not enforcing that same restriction on others.
E. Using a Jew or the Jewish people as a scapegoat for problems in a community.
F. Fueling anti-Semitic feelings by allowing ideology that purports that one faith is superior to the Jewish faith.
G. Allowing the promulgation of an ideology by not stopping it immediatly of racial anti-Semitism.
H. Attempting to eliminate the influence of a Jew by expulsion or policies that do not allow the Jewish perspective.
K. Prejudice angainst a Jew or the Jewish people as indicated by an attitude of indifference to the Jew or the Jewish people.
L. Having additional requierments to a Jew or to the Jewish people than to others.
M. Using a selection process that denies a Jew or the Jewish people equal opportunity in a community.
N. Favoring attitudes in a community that could arrouse hostility toward a Jew or the Jewish people by allowing others to not be prevented from fueling anti-Semitic feelings.
P. Other definitions of anti-Semitism not listed.
If you would like to have dialog concerning what the above could mean in more detail, you could email me if you like.
Lou

 

Lou's request for consideration-defvasm

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2008, at 17:52:05

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-gwzptduck?, posted by Dena on July 21, 2008, at 20:42:45

> So, did anyone else click on Lou's link, and read that previous thread, from 2005?
>
> I was flabbergasted by what I read there...!
>
> I wasn't active here then (I started posting in 2001 or 2002, but got tired of the lack of freedom to speak, and left around 2004), so I was unfamiliar with what occurred then... but whew!
>
> Here's the deal: It was brought to Dr. Bob's attention that a poster was making racial slurs, specifically about Jews. I'm not Jewish, but they made ME cringe. It took a good long while, and much protest from various posters for Dr. Bob to check it out. He said he didn't want to censor it because it was a "grey area" (he said that since the poster had been victimized in hhis past, he didn't want to discourage him from expressing himself). Excuse me? Someone speaks out hostile comments about an entire ethnic group, due to their negative experiences with a few from that group, and that's a "grey area"...?
>
> Dr. Bob claimed that he didn't know where to draw the line. Again, that doesn't pass the staight-face test, given his stated penchant for wanting to put out a spark before it becomes a forest fire. It's wholly and completely inconsistent with how he's jumped on others -- immediately -- for making similar (& even more mild) comments about other ethnic/religious groups. As he should -- but why the inconsistency?
>
> According to Dr. Bob's own rules, anything which may lead to others feeling put down, needs to be censored. I'm sorry, but "money-grubbing Jews" (which was the mildest of the poster's defamations) definitely crosses the line into what *MAY* lead others to feel put down...!
>
> There was then a public outcry, from those who are Jewish as well as those who are not, protesting Dr. Bob's (utter lack of a) ruling in this situation.
>
> What completely shocked me, is how it took nearly 3 long weeks for Dr. Bob to finally see that what the poster had written was indeed racist (in this case, anti-Semitic). Why so long? Why did it take Dr. Bob so long to see what was so blatantly clear to the rest of us? What sort of a precedent does that set here? In my opinion, Dr. Bob's way-slow sanction was a case of "too little, too late" ... and damage could not be undone.
>
> Now, to be honest, I've thought for a while that perhaps Lou was exaggerating about his claims of anti-Semitism. I'm a woman, and I know I can certainly be hyper-sensitive to perceived misogyny -- IOW, I can see it even where it's not intended, due to a lifetime of having been put down, squelched, ignored, and patronized, due to my gender.
>
> HOWEVER, this is blatant...! People had to talk Dr. Bob into seeing what should have been plain to him. I now see what Lou has been talking about -- it's there. I'm not saying that only anti-Semitism has been glossed over -- likely individuals of various ethnic/religious groups will be more sensitive than those who are not in their groups, about seeing slights stated against them. I'm sure that other forms of racism, sexism and anti-isms have been uttered, with even a few managing to sneak past the deputies and Dr. Bob.
>
> Is the anti-Semitism being allowed (or not directly delt with soon enough) because Lou is the most prolific protester against it...? Is it because some do not care for his posting style, and requests for clarification, and so his posts are thus discounted?
>
> Even if there were no Jewish members of this board, such ethnic slurs should not be allowed, much less declared a "grey area" and shruggged off!
>
> If it happened then, due to some underlying issue, then it's likely still happening now. It's wrong, it needs to be exposed, examined, and set right.
>
> Shalom, Dena
>
> "The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
> unquestioned answers."
>
> "We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
> learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
>
> "Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
> being up to something."
>
> "Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
>
> "While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
> swallow all that we taste."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

Friends,
If you are considering responding here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link to a thread. I think that if you examine the tread that there could be helpful infomation that IMO could be of such to have a better understanding of the issues in this thread.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/836537.html

 

Re: Lou's request for consideration-defvasm Lou Pilder

Posted by Zeba on August 5, 2008, at 21:53:03

In reply to Lou's request for consideration-defvasm, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2008, at 17:52:05

Well obviously anti-semetic comments should not be allowed, and I can see how one would feel there is discrimination if such is allowed to stand. It seems Lou was cautioned as if he made an anti-semetic comment, when he is Jewish and was complaining that someone's comments were allowed to stand. That is plain goofy to think he would make an anti-semetic comment.

Well, Lou, I will say that this does not just happen in regard to anti-semetic comments. It can be about anything pretty much, and if Dr. Bob thinks the post is okay even if someone is highly insulted or hurt, well it stands. He is clearly not perfect or objective. He is human and though a doctor, he does make mistakes. It is part of the human condition. I would hope that glaring comments that hurt would not be overlooked, however.

Zeba

 

Lou's reply to Zeba-dhacrtnrzes Zeba

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 6, 2008, at 20:17:44

In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-defvasm Lou Pilder, posted by Zeba on August 5, 2008, at 21:53:03

> Well obviously anti-semetic comments should not be allowed, and I can see how one would feel there is discrimination if such is allowed to stand. It seems Lou was cautioned as if he made an anti-semetic comment, when he is Jewish and was complaining that someone's comments were allowed to stand. That is plain goofy to think he would make an anti-semetic comment.
>
> Well, Lou, I will say that this does not just happen in regard to anti-semetic comments. It can be about anything pretty much, and if Dr. Bob thinks the post is okay even if someone is highly insulted or hurt, well it stands. He is clearly not perfect or objective. He is human and though a doctor, he does make mistakes. It is part of the human condition. I would hope that glaring comments that hurt would not be overlooked, however.
>
> Zeba

Zeba,
You wrote,[...I can see...].
Do you see anything else in relation to the aspects of this thread?
Lou

 

Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem?

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 7, 2008, at 6:31:08

In reply to Lou's request for consideration-plnyvzbl?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2008, at 8:30:00

> > Crap; I wasn't on the board then, but to suggest it is okay to slander a group of people because the person has been victimized is just plain ridiculous. So, I was victimized too, but that didn't stop anyone from pulling the plug on me if I said something even slightly negative. I have had things happen to me hear that were given the brush off, but god forbid if I did the same. I would be blocked in a flash. In my experience,things are not always fair here. I also think it is impossible for deputies to be objective. We are all human. I don't think Dr. Bob is all that objective either from what I have seen. So, I don't come here much anymore and certainly would not post about anything personal anymore. I don't need the grief. I just don't pay attention to much here anymore but was asked to take a look at this thread.
> >
> > You know I am a Unitarian Universalist, and my church is now being targeted by hate groups. Just this weekend the UU church in Knoxville was attacked and but for the heroism of a few, at least 200 would have been killed. Two were killed, and that is two too many.
> >
> > Zeba
> >
> > Zeba
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you consider the generally accepted meanings as to what is anti-Semitism. If you could, then I think that you could be better able to post any response that you are considering here, if any. Here is a list of the generally accepted aspects of what constitutes anti-Semitism.
> A. Allegations of sterotyping of a Jew or Jews as a people and calling for a justification of the sterotyping of Jews.
> B. Punishing a Jew or Jews for their unique beliefs or for their refusal to accept the claimes of Christianity.
> C. Having an attitude or even a policy directed toward a Jew or Jews as a people
> D. Placing a restriction on a Jew in a community while not enforcing that same restriction on others.
> E. Using a Jew or the Jewish people as a scapegoat for problems in a community.
> F. Fueling anti-Semitic feelings by allowing ideology that purports that one faith is superior to the Jewish faith.
> G. Allowing the promulgation of an ideology by not stopping it immediatly of racial anti-Semitism.
> H. Attempting to eliminate the influence of a Jew by expulsion or policies that do not allow the Jewish perspective.
> K. Prejudice angainst a Jew or the Jewish people as indicated by an attitude of indifference to the Jew or the Jewish people.
> L. Having additional requierments to a Jew or to the Jewish people than to others.
> M. Using a selection process that denies a Jew or the Jewish people equal opportunity in a community.
> N. Favoring attitudes in a community that could arrouse hostility toward a Jew or the Jewish people by allowing others to not be prevented from fueling anti-Semitic feelings.
> P. Other definitions of anti-Semitism not listed.
> If you would like to have dialog concerning what the above could mean in more detail, you could email me if you like.
> Lou

Friends,
If you are considering to post a response in this thread, I am requesting that you consider the definitions of what is generally accepted as constituting anti-Semitism. A search using {definition of anti-Semitism} will bring up many web sites for you to inspect if you like.
The following are some other generally accepted tactics used in communities to foster anti-Semitism.
R. Allowing the demonization of a Jew or the Jewish people. This is usally done through the media or by allowing others to post signs depicting Jews as demons or evil.
S. Allowing the attributing to the Jews the corporate responsibility for something to the Jews as a people.
T. Allowing the arrousing of what is known as racial anti-Semitism to a Jew or the Jewish people by fostering the ideology of National Socialism as promulgated by Joseph Goebbles and Julius Striker and the other deputies of the Third Riech's leader. This type of anti-Semitism is usually fostered by a community allowing the reminding of a Jew or the Jewish people of the horrors of the holocaust or attempting the ligitimizing or minimizing of the holocaust or ridiculing or mocking a Jew about genetic antisemitism of that ideology from 1933 to 1945.
T. other definitions and tactics used by communities to foster anti-Semitism not stated.
Friends, if you wish to have dialog with me so that I can further explore these definitions and tactics used by communities to foster ant-Semitism, you could email me if you like. Please state that you are 21 years of age.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem? Lou Pilder

Posted by Zeba on August 8, 2008, at 22:17:49

In reply to Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 7, 2008, at 6:31:08

Lou

I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people who post here are Jewish. I am referring to the posts that say the Jews killed Jesus. I do not understand why this was never addressed. Hopefully Dr. Bob or someone can explain why that is okay to post. I do not know who posted, I guess a bunch of people, and I am sorry about it all. I just do not know how I can be of help. I am too drained each day I come home from work and cannot really get up the strength to read posts or answer them. I am trying to be of help, but I fear I will not be able to do what you wish I could do. I am so sorry.
Zeba

 

Re: why such things are allowed to stand

Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:50:54

In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem? Lou Pilder, posted by Zeba on August 8, 2008, at 22:17:49

> I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand

If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,

Bob

 

Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-lhetbesean Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 5:10:29

In reply to Re: why such things are allowed to stand, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:50:54

> > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
>
> If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote to Zeba,[...a problem, could you please not repeat it?...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in regards to posting that to her here. I am unsure as to why because the administtrative forum according to your TOS is for the discussion of problems involving the forum, which could mean that the identification of what is the subject of discussion would need to be seen, and to discuss the following:
A. Discuss asking for your rationale for something, which could mean that what is being asked is identified in the request to be seen.
B. Discuss administrative actions taken,which could identify what is what is in question, and would not no action taken be an action?
C. Discuss improvments for the forum which could cite the subject for improvment, (identification) which could be mentioning what is wanting to be discussed as per your TOS
D. Doimg what is good for the community as a whole which could bring up a request for {why} which could then identify what is wanting to be discussed.
E. Writing what can be seen, for is it not written here something like,[...not untill it can be seen can one know it...]?
Zeba's question IMO is a good question. It is a good question IMO because it could have the potential IMO to bring a resolution, if it was discussed and seen. You see, resolving the past has the potential IMO to be benificial for the present and the future for many reasons as could be shown in historical parallels and IMO be good for the community as a whole.
Could not Zeba's question as to {why} be answered by her identifying what she is wanting an answer to so that it can be seen? If not, could you post here your rationale for as to why not? If you could ,then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's request to members-ahlwtusthn?

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2008, at 10:50:14

In reply to Re: Please Advise, posted by Sigismund on July 28, 2008, at 4:40:26

> >People could feel put down if its suggested that they might be missing the point of heaven:
>
> I'm on record as saying I not only don't see the virtues of heaven but that it is a petit bourgeois event I would prefer to miss.
>
> >I have seen that Lou has been singled out, for being who he is, and sharing as he shares, with people being frustrated with him, rude to him, and getting away with things far worse than what he's censored for.
>
> Like me, for example.

Frinds,
If you are consideriing to post here in this thread, I am asking that you click on the offerd link to a thread here and take into consideration what can be seen in the thread.
I think that if you could, that a reply posted here could have IMO a more understanding concerning the issues presented in this administrative thread and iMo one could be better able to respond to the issues here.
Here is one link to the thread and there could be a tedious process for what can be seen there to find and if you would like for me to give you the post and what is in the post in question so that you do not have to take the time to go through all of the posts, you could email me if you like. If so, please state that you are over 21 and I will post a trigger that what you could see could IMO change your perspective to as to what I am treying to convey here concerning that what could be seen may tie in many aspects of the discussions in other threads and explain IMO many posts here that may be unbeknownst to you.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656735.html

 

Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04

In reply to Re: why such things are allowed to stand, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:50:54

> > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
>
> If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
[...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
Lou Pilder

 

Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem?

Posted by Sigismund on August 26, 2008, at 18:48:04

In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem? Lou Pilder, posted by Zeba on August 8, 2008, at 22:17:49

Well Lou
Things could be worse. I remember a time when Christianity was antisemitic. Now, especially in the US, there is Christian Zionism. Is that Hal Lindsay? Anyway, I don't think there is much point in going through past posts. For myself, I would like Christians to take responsibility for their demonology, not only in Christianity, but wherever it spreads to, about which it would be uncivil to make further reference.

 

Re: Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts

Posted by Dena on August 26, 2008, at 23:50:24

In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04

If we shouldn't even bring attention to something that's previously posted, due to how problematic it is -- why is such a problematic thing allowed to remain in place...?

Shalom, Dena

 

Please rephrase Sigismund

Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 27, 2008, at 14:10:46

In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem?, posted by Sigismund on August 26, 2008, at 18:48:04

> For myself, I would like Christians to take responsibility for their demonology, not only in Christianity, but wherever it spreads to, about which it would be uncivil to make further reference.

Keeping in mind that the idea here is to be sensitive to those of all religions, could you please clarify or rephrase the above?

Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.