![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 49 to 73 of 180. Go back in thread:
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.
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
> LouFriends,
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
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
> LouFriends,
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
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
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
> LouFriends,
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
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
>
> ZebaFriends,
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
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
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.
>
> ZebaZeba,
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
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
>
> ZebaFriends,
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
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
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
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.
>
> ZebaZeba,
You wrote,[...I can see...].
Do you see anything else in relation to the aspects of this thread?
Lou
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.
> LouFriends,
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
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
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
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,
>
> BobMr. 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
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
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,
>
> BobMr. 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
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.
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
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
Posted by Sigismund on August 27, 2008, at 22:34:53
In reply to Please rephrase » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 27, 2008, at 14:10:46
OK
Lou has been concerned with posts that he has felt to be antisemitic and have been allowed to stand, in contrast to the threat to block him should he mention what the Rider said to him.
Some of these posts have mentioned or been linked to the following passages
John 5, verse 16:
'the Jews persecuted Him and sought to slay Him'
verse 18:
'The Jews sought more to kill Him'
verse 23
'He that honoureth not the son honoureth not the Father'.The history of Christian antisemitism has been informed by such passages from the Bible. The relationship of such passages to the antisemitism of the Nazi regime is more tenuous, but many Christians, since WWII, have worried that the foundations of their faith may have been a contributing factor to the demonology of the Nazis.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 28, 2008, at 11:29:18
In reply to Re: Please rephrase » Deputy Dinah, posted by Sigismund on August 27, 2008, at 22:34:53
> ...many Christians, since WWII, have worried that the foundations of their faith may have been a contributing factor to the demonology of the Nazis.
I think this statement is fine.
But some of those verses should not be posted on this site, so you shouldn't quote them on Admin either. The fact that they're in the Bible doesn't mean that they can be posted on board.
Also, Babble might not be the proper place to express some of your views about the history of Christianity, for the same reasons.
Your freedom of speech is limited here.
Regarding the history on this site. It is unfortunate if in the past antisemitic statements have gone without censure. The deputies are very sensitive to antisemitic content, and we'll do our best to make sure that we enforce the already existing rules about sensitivity and civility to those of all religions. Dr. Bob is clear that he doesn't wish to allow statements that could lead those of any religion to feel accused or put down. But he doesn't go back years to add PBC's, and he just doesn't remove posts even if they are uncivil. There are some good reasons for this, including technical reasons such as the fact that a PBC is generally considered to cover all preceding actions. He has said many times that he prefers to look forward rather than go back, and I think posts that are years old will probably not be adjusted now, based on my knowledge of his traditional behaviors.
I don't know why Lou isn't allowed to post what the Rider said to him. My understanding of the rules is as I outlined in another post. If what he wishes to post falls into the what's allowable, or if it can be edited to fall within what's allowable, then he can post it.
Posted by muffled on August 29, 2008, at 1:11:57
In reply to Please follow site guidelines » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 28, 2008, at 11:29:18
wasn't Jesus himself Jewish?
Isn't Christianity based on Christ, who was a Jew?
People been killing each other since always.
If it not bout religion, its bout race, or bout robbing and pillaging other villages, etc etc etc.
I don't think anybody, any religion, any skin color, any culture is perfect. We ALL gots flaws.
We all got killing in our anscetry somewhere.
Its the nature of humanoty. ALL humanity irregardless of race creed or religion.
Its a fallen f*ck*d world.
We may as well try and make the best of it and do our best to build up, not tear down, to be kind and try to not cause more pain than there already is. Just to try and do as best we can (which at times may not seem like much), just keep going.
WTF else can we do?
See man has so much evil, but there is so much goodness too.
Share the good.
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 19:24:48
> I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
>
> I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
>
> My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
>
> Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.Dinah,
You wrote,[...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...]
I am unsure as to what you are using as criteria to determine in your mind to constitute a belief. I am also unsure as to what you consider to be the administration. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly by having a definition of what in your belief constitutes in your thinking the above so that we could agree or not as to what a discussion could be founded on per the grammatical structure in your statement in question.
A. In [...the administration..] could that mean;
1. only Mr. Hsiung?
2. all the deputies and Mr. Hsiung?
3. Mr. Hsiung and one deputy?
4. the deputies only?
5. one deputy?
6. some other combination?
7. something else?
B. In [...If I believed the administration of this site was...] could you clarify by listing criteria that could or could not be a criteria that could lead you to consider that the criteria constitutes something that could cause you to have the belief in queation? If you could list those criteria that you use, then I, and perhaps others, could have the opportunity to have a better understanding of what the site could or could not consider as criteria that could or could not determine if the admiinistration of this site is or is not antisemitic, by understanding your thinking as to what a belief is or is not.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.