![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 156 to 180 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 8:58:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response t aspects of fayerore's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on March 7, 2009, at 9:16:29
> I also do not give a rat's*** about what Bob thinks. That is very empowering in my participation on the boards. And I don't put that much value on whether or not administration sees things the way I see them....I doubt that Bob has ever seen an Indian. :-) I just have a very different outlook than you......Take care and good luck, Pat
Friends,
It is written here,[...I don't give a..about what (Mr. Hsiung) thinks...good luck...].
The aspect here that I see is that Mr. Hsiung has posted here that he agrees that if there is a post where he has it brought to his attention and that he does nothing about it, that he thinks that it is not against the rules. (citation B)
Now that is part of all of this in my attempt to have the statements in question notated by the administration as not civil. For if members think that it is not against the rules as being unnotated as being not civil, then could they not then believe that they can post the same here?
Lou
citation B
http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 9:01:55
In reply to Lou's response toaspects of fayerore's post-~agnst, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 8:58:13
> > I also do not give a rat's*** about what Bob thinks. That is very empowering in my participation on the boards. And I don't put that much value on whether or not administration sees things the way I see them....I doubt that Bob has ever seen an Indian. :-) I just have a very different outlook than you......Take care and good luck, Pat
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I don't give a..about what (Mr. Hsiung) thinks...good luck...].
> The aspect here that I see is that Mr. Hsiung has posted here that he agrees that if there is a post where he has it brought to his attention and that he does nothing about it, that he thinks that it is not against the rules. (citation B)
> Now that is part of all of this in my attempt to have the statements in question notated by the administration as not civil. For if members think that it is not against the rules as being unnotated as being not civil, then could they not then believe that they can post the same here?
> Lou
> citation B
> http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
>
>
>
corrected link for [...not against the rules...]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 10:22:59
In reply to correction to link for not against the rules, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 9:01:55
Friends,
I would like to have an email discussion concerning the following. If you would like, then I could point out what I think could be of importance in this discussion..
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/884390.html
Posted by Sigismund on March 8, 2009, at 16:12:20
In reply to Lou's response toaspects of fayerore's post-~agnst, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 8:58:13
>For if members think that it is not against the rules as being unnotated as being not civil, then could they not then believe that they can post the same here?
Lou, it's way too early in the morning for me to understand that, but I see you have 3 posts in a row.
Posted by fayeroe on March 8, 2009, at 18:18:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response toaspects of fayerore's post-~agnst » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on March 8, 2009, at 16:12:20
Lou, of course I cannot prevent you from taking a knife and fork to my posts. However I have requested in other threads that you not ask for any kind of clarification when it comes to my posts. I would ask, again, for your understanding...
Thank you, Pat
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 22:03:07
In reply to Lou's request to readers via email, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2009, at 10:22:59
> Friends,
> I would like to have an email discussion concerning the following. If you would like, then I could point out what I think could be of importance in this discussion..
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/884390.htmlFriends,
If you are considering posting here, I am asking that you read the following and take into consideration the aspects that csan be seen in the threads. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here.
Louhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/774900.html
Posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 7:50:44
In reply to Lou's request to members-falarg, posted by Lou Pilder on March 3, 2009, at 8:08:17
I hope you're doing well, Lou. I just wanted to share my feelings if that's okay. I find it unsettling that you see so much anti-semitism here at this site, and I feel troubled and unsafe at the thought that you might be searching it out. I'm aware that you have a mental issue of some type. May I ask how your treatment going? Also, I'd feel a lot more comfortable socializing with you if you could conversationalize in a more fluid way. Does your treatment address that? I hope it's okay that I wrote this. I think, at heart, I'd feel better about interacting with you if we could discuss these things. Unfortunately I've felt the need to avoid your threads for quite some time.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 28, 2009, at 8:29:11
In reply to Re: Lou's request to members-falarg » Lou Pilder, posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 7:50:44
>
> I hope you're doing well, Lou. I just wanted to share my feelings if that's okay. I find it unsettling that you see so much anti-semitism here at this site, and I feel troubled and unsafe at the thought that you might be searching it out. I'm aware that you have a mental issue of some type. May I ask how your treatment going? Also, I'd feel a lot more comfortable socializing with you if you could conversationalize in a more fluid way. Does your treatment address that? I hope it's okay that I wrote this. I think, at heart, I'd feel better about interacting with you if we could discuss these things. Unfortunately I've felt the need to avoid your threads for quite some time.
>Cass,
You wrote,[...I hope that you are doing well...]
I appreciate your concern here. You may know about bi polar disorder and I have been in a cycle of such that I am trying to overcome. This is one of those severe cycles that may last longer that has limited me in many respects. With any discussion about that, I prefer to do that by email.
You wrote,[...I find it unsettling that you find so much anti-Semitism here...]
In the post that you responded to here, I asked for members to read what is in the links that I posted. One link gives the agreed on definition by me and the owner of this site of what constitutes a post that is anti-Semitic. Have you read that? If so, could you post here any thoughts that you have concerning that?
You wrote,[...I feel troubled and unsafe.. that you might be searching it out...]
I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to cause you to feel troubled and unsafe if I was searching it out. Could you post here why you feel that way if I am searching it out or not searching it out? Could it not be plainly visible?
You wrote,[...a more fluid way...] I am unsure as to what that way could be. Could you post here an example to show such?
Lou
Posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 21:19:49
In reply to Lou's reply to Cass-roadmaster » Cass, posted by Lou Pilder on May 28, 2009, at 8:29:11
Lou, the reason I feel uncomfortable about the possibility of you "searching out" antisemetism is that you could misinterpret something I or some other poster writes it in a way that wasn't our intention. I'm concerned that you're looking for opportunities to call people antisemetic. I apologize if that isn't true, but I've noticed you write about it a lot. I would feel very wronged if someone accused me of that. I haven't read all your past posts. I don't have the inclination to do that. The antisemetic theme is just something I've noticed over time, and I wouldn't think there would be much of an problem of antisemetism here on PB.
What I mean by communicating in a more fluid way is simply being more spontaneous in conversation and not so analytical by breaking things down into pieces and asking for a lot of clarification. Is it possible you could respond from your gut without asking for clarification? I don't presume to know the answer, but I'm just suggesting it's a possibility.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 29, 2009, at 20:54:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Cass-roadmaster » Lou Pilder, posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 21:19:49
> Lou, the reason I feel uncomfortable about the possibility of you "searching out" antisemetism is that you could misinterpret something I or some other poster writes it in a way that wasn't our intention. I'm concerned that you're looking for opportunities to call people antisemetic. I apologize if that isn't true, but I've noticed you write about it a lot. I would feel very wronged if someone accused me of that. I haven't read all your past posts. I don't have the inclination to do that. The antisemetic theme is just something I've noticed over time, and I wouldn't think there would be much of an problem of antisemetism here on PB.
>
> What I mean by communicating in a more fluid way is simply being more spontaneous in conversation and not so analytical by breaking things down into pieces and asking for a lot of clarification. Is it possible you could respond from your gut without asking for clarification? I don't presume to know the answer, but I'm just suggesting it's a possibility.Cass,
You wrote,[...Is it possible..to respond..without asking for clarification?...].
I could respond to what could be seen without asking for clarification. It is when I can not see it, that I ask for clarification, for if the clarification is given, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
You wrote,[...you could misinterptret something...that wasn't our intention...]
In your statement, one could misinterpret something when all the facts are not visible. That is why I ask for clarification, so as to be able to have the missing facts that I could use so that I do not misinterpret what the member wrote.
You wrote,[...you're looking for opportunities to call people...]. Could you post here your criteria that you use to determine in your thinking if someone is looking for opportunities to call people anything? I do not need to search for what you are referring to for I can know it when it can be seen, for Mr. Hsiung agrees with me that antisemitic statements are those that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused. So when I read it and feel put down or accused, then it is visible to me and sometimes a statement can be unclear to me and I ask for clarification so that the member could rule out what could be possible without the clarification to rule it out.
You wrote, [...you write about it a lot...]
I am unsure as to what the {it} is in your statement. If you could clarify by identifying such, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
You wrote,[...the antisemitic theme is ..something I noticed...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as to the theme that is antisemitic. Could you write some additional aspects to clarify what the theme is and what the antisemitic adjective then imports? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
You wrote,[...much of an problem of antisemitism here on PB...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by your statement. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What in your thinking constitutes a problem?
Lou
Posted by Cass on May 29, 2009, at 21:58:57
In reply to Lou's reply to Cass- » Cass, posted by Lou Pilder on May 29, 2009, at 20:54:45
I'm tired.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 29, 2009, at 22:03:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Cass-roadmaster » Lou Pilder, posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 21:19:49
Cass,
I am requesting that you click on the link here and read all the posts in the thread and include what can be seen in any reply to me here.
Please understand that there was a rule made by Mr. Hsiung before the post in question that members are not to post links to web sites something like if that they have antisemitic content, period.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2010, at 8:44:12
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.Friends,
It is written here to Dena,[...Is it your experiance that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than Christians...?...not...]
If you are interested in posting a response here to Dinah's post, I am asking that you email me if you like.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 30, 2010, at 13:24:21
In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
> > > 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 PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure, the above has outstanding questions from me to you concerning your TOS here that if a member would like to know your rationale, to just ask you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 7:27:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts, posted by Dena on August 26, 2008, at 23:50:24
> 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, DenaHi Dena,
If this comes up to yopour email, could you review this thread and continue with any more thoughts that you may have concerning what you have posted here?
I would appreciate any inpuut from your perspective because now I am in fear of the potential of me, and other Jews, being a victim of antisemitic violence or those of the Islamic faith being victims of anti-Islamic violence or that others that are not members of Christiandom could be victims of violence due to an ongoing situation where I have outstanding requests here to Mr. Hsiung concerning statements that IMHO could arrouuse antisemitic feelings and anti feelings to others that are non-Christians.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 7:37:50
In reply to Re: Lou's request to members-falarg » Lou Pilder, posted by Cass on May 28, 2009, at 7:50:44
>
> I hope you're doing well, Lou. I just wanted to share my feelings if that's okay. I find it unsettling that you see so much anti-semitism here at this site, and I feel troubled and unsafe at the thought that you might be searching it out. I'm aware that you have a mental issue of some type. May I ask how your treatment going? Also, I'd feel a lot more comfortable socializing with you if you could conversationalize in a more fluid way. Does your treatment address that? I hope it's okay that I wrote this. I think, at heart, I'd feel better about interacting with you if we could discuss these things. Unfortunately I've felt the need to avoid your threads for quite some time.
>Cass,
If this comes up in your email, I am requesting that you review this thread and if you could post from your perspective here I would appreciate it.
Your perspective could change as that now there is an ongoing situation where I have outstanding requests to tthe administration here that IMHO could subject me and other Jews to the potential of antisemitic violence,and others that are non-Christians also, while the statements in queation are outstndiing.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 7:47:39
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
>
> ZebaZeba,
I am hopinng that yoou could review this thread and post more from your perspective. There is an ongoing situation now here where I have outstanding requests to Mr. Hsiung and IMHO I could become a victim of antisemitic violence and other non-Christians also. I re read your postt about how your grouup was attacked and there were people killed. I really would aappreciate that you postt here from youur perspective.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 8:00:44
In reply to Re: Lou's request for a continuance-wropapohp » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on January 27, 2009, at 23:47:53
> Lou
>
> I guess that as a Jew you are determined that this must never happen again and that at any time and place (such as here) you will do what you can to expose and criticise antisemitism and the roots of it.
>
> And this is why you make the demands on Admin that you do.Hi Sigismund,
I am requesting that you re read this thread and if you could post from your perspective, I would appreciate it. There is an ongoing situation where I have outstanding requests to Mr. Hsiung that IMHO during the time they remain outstnding, that antisemitic feelings, or anti feelings directed to othere non-Christians, could be arroused. The statements IMHO could subject me to the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence as long as my requests to Mr. Hsiung remain outstanding.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 8:14:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-danithzathzneiz, posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 20:35:35
> Well I haven't kept up on all your messages, but I could take a guess that you believe all religions should be accepted here on Babble and have the same rules apply to all regions on Babble. But again, I am just guessing..
>SSSS,
I am unsure if you could post here or not since I have not seen your name recently.If you receive this in your email, could you email me?
I am in fear here of being a victim of antisemitic violence due to that there are outstanding requests from me to Mr. Hsiuhg that IMHO could have the potential for the statements in question to arrouse antisemitic feelings as long as my requests are outstanding.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by sigismund on January 27, 2011, at 0:30:27
In reply to Lou's request to Sigismund-ekxpoez » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 8:00:44
>There is an ongoing situation where I have outstanding requests to Mr. Hsiung that IMHO during the time they remain outstnding,
Hey Lou, I don't have the energy to reread but I remember something of the feeling of the thread.
But I have a question for you.
You often post to Dr Bob about how you have notifications outstanding, but we never get to hear if your requests were attended to.
Can you tell us if you ever get any satisfaction?
This problem seems to arise because of Christian (or any) claims to a monopoly of truth.
The term Islamofasicm has not been censured on Babble.
I used Christianist without censure, but never went further.
Posted by sigismund on January 27, 2011, at 1:27:14
In reply to Lou's request to Dena-mahydaigh » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2011, at 7:27:00
>or those of the Islamic faith being victims of anti-Islamic violence or that others that are not members of Christiandom could be victims of violence
Thank you Lou for posting that.
There was a radio program on The Family this afternoon.
Crusaders?
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 27, 2011, at 8:29:02
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dena-mahydaigh » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on January 27, 2011, at 1:27:14
> >or those of the Islamic faith being victims of anti-Islamic violence or that others that are not members of Christiandom could be victims of violence
>
> Thank you Lou for posting that.
>
> There was a radio program on The Family this afternoon.
>
> Crusaders?Sigismund,
You wrote,[...Thank you...].
You are welcome. You see, I am trying to save lives and I am in great fear that as long as the requests of mine remain outstanding, that there is the potential IMHO for Jews and other non-Christians to be targets to be killed or beaten or have their property vandalized. I base this on the historical record that when what is allowed by a community to be promulgated as being [OK} by the {state}, that has the potential for some people in the community to think of Jews and other non-Christians as being inferior, which could have the potential IMHO for what is posted to promote or foster what is considerd by Jews and other non-Christians to be derogatory or dehuminzing to Jews and other non-Christians. Then there are some people that could IMHO take this as a call by their community to be hostile to Jews and other non-Christians and to go out and (redacted by respondent) a Jew or other non-Christian, since the statement in question here is allowed at this time to be considerd to be supportive to the community, which some could then think that what is in quuestion here is {state-sponsored}.
I will use all my might to stop a community from promulgating anything that says that Jews are precluded from eternal life because they do not accept the claim of popular Christiandom to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This has happened before in the historical record because people allowed it. We Jews say, never again.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 27, 2011, at 8:50:08
In reply to Lou's reply-psteightpsonsoard? » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 27, 2011, at 8:29:02
> > >or those of the Islamic faith being victims of anti-Islamic violence or that others that are not members of Christiandom could be victims of violence
> >
> > Thank you Lou for posting that.
> >
> > There was a radio program on The Family this afternoon.
> >
> > Crusaders?
>
> Sigismund,
> You wrote,[...Thank you...].
> You are welcome. You see, I am trying to save lives and I am in great fear that as long as the requests of mine remain outstanding, that there is the potential IMHO for Jews and other non-Christians to be targets to be killed or beaten or have their property vandalized. I base this on the historical record that when what is allowed by a community to be promulgated as being [OK} by the {state}, that has the potential for some people in the community to think of Jews and other non-Christians as being inferior, which could have the potential IMHO for what is posted to promote or foster what is considerd by Jews and other non-Christians to be derogatory or dehuminzing to Jews and other non-Christians. Then there are some people that could IMHO take this as a call by their community to be hostile to Jews and other non-Christians and to go out and (redacted by respondent) a Jew or other non-Christian, since the statement in question here is allowed at this time to be considerd to be supportive to the community, which some could then think that what is in quuestion here is {state-sponsored}.
> I will use all my might to stop a community from promulgating anything that says that Jews are precluded from eternal life because they do not accept the claim of popular Christiandom to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This has happened before in the historical record because people allowed it. We Jews say, never again.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
I want to use all my might to stop statements here that could lead a Jew to feel put down or to be in fear of being a victim of antisemitic violence. But my might is limited to my strengh and ability to post here to offer education concerning what is in question here that is ongoing. I need other's help now for them to examine what is ongoing here and to use their strenth and ability to post here from their perspective. I am called the "lone dissenter" here and I have not been able to have the administration post here answers to my requests as you can see. And each day could bring new people that could see the statements in question and think that they are supportive. I am afraid now that my might is not effective to bring the administration here to respond to my requests, for I have no one to turn to except the members here. And who could I turn to if you turn away?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2012, at 5:37:32
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-urrahtinnal, posted by Lou Pilder on April 30, 2010, at 13:24:21
> > > > 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
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure, the above has outstanding questions from me to you concerning your TOS here that if a member would like to know your rationale, to just ask you.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above for your rationale.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 12, 2013, at 12:53:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Sigismund-ekxpoez » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on January 27, 2011, at 0:30:27
> >There is an ongoing situation where I have outstanding requests to Mr. Hsiung that IMHO during the time they remain outstnding,
>
> Hey Lou, I don't have the energy to reread but I remember something of the feeling of the thread.
>
> But I have a question for you.
>
> You often post to Dr Bob about how you have notifications outstanding, but we never get to hear if your requests were attended to.
>
> Can you tell us if you ever get any satisfaction?
>
> This problem seems to arise because of Christian (or any) claims to a monopoly of truth.
>
> The term Islamofasicm has not been censured on Babble.
>
> I used Christianist without censure, but never went further.sigismund,
The outstanding requests here remain outstanding as are plainly visible. The outstanding notifications can not be determined by examining this board. As to if any of my notifications have been responded to according to Mr Hsoiung's TOS here, I could respond to members that are curious about tha tby email. For those wanting to email, you can use the b-mail to exchange email addresses.
Now one can see the posts that contain defamtion toward me and see for themselves if there ....and the posts that contain statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings can be seen as...and then you couldhave an idea if my notifications arew still outstanding. And if one match could start a forest fire, could the fire be still burning?
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.