Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 737093

Shown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-C

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2007, at 20:12:52

In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-B, posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2007, at 17:10:54

> > DR. Hsiung,
> > In regards to you policy that it is fine to discuss your decisions and such, the following decision by you is on the faith board and am not aquainted with the mechanics of transferring a post from there to this board.
> > In your post, you write, "I think that's good, thanks."
> > Your response was after the statement in question that was asked by the administration to be rephrased.
> > The statement in question has two parts joined by the conjunction, {but}. In the second part of the statement, there is {came by}.
> > The grammatical structure of {|came| by} is the past tense of {come}.
> > Looking at the statement in question, I feel ,as a Jew, put down when reading itl, for it conloins the law of Moses with the second part of the statement in question..
> > The rule for the forum are that if a statement has the potential to lead a person to feel put down, then it is uncivil. The rules also state that the intent does not change an uncivil statement to a civil statement, nor does if it is the opinion (which could be a beliefe) of the author.
> > Since I feel the statement in question leads {me} to feel put down , and you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}, while the statement in question remains the same.
> > I feel dehumanized when I read that because I have the understanding here that I could not post statements that have the potential to lead someone to feel put down , even if I wrote that I believed it, for is it not what can be seen by redacting the preface to statements that have the potential to lead one to feel put down?
> > The rule for the faith board is that if a doctrine of a faith is posted, it can be prefaced with, {people of my faith believe}. I think that that is different from, {I believe}.
> > But that is not suffucient to allow a statement that has the potential to put down one of another faith. For you have written that there are things (foundations of faiths) that can not be posted even if they preface it with {people of my faith believe}, because if the statement puts down another faith, it is uncivil according to the rules here and I think that the statement in question has the potential IMO to be considered a foundation of a faith.
> > I feel put down by reading the grammatical structure of the statement in question
> > It is my fear here that now others can, by your approval of this statement being civil by prefaceing it with {I believe}, post similar statements and they will be civil if they preface them with {I believe}.
> > There could be many interpretations to the bible verse in question here. In your rule that states that posts are uncivil if they {could lead}another to {feel} put down, I feel put down when I read the statment in question, and if I feel put down , there is the potential IMO for others to feel put down also when they read the statement in question, perhaps those that keep the law of Moses?
> > You write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole and ask the members here to trust you. And you write that if one wants to know your rationale for such, to ask.
> > I am asking you to post your rationale here for allowing the statement in question to stand by the author prefacing the statement with {I believe}. If you are going to cite your deputy's reply to me, could you take into consideration that I disagree in part with your deputy in her reply to me, although she did say that I was correct and I do agree with her there. But in her reply, I do not understand what she meant about "this is the truth" in post 736760. So if you consolodate your reply to me here with her reply as to stateing your rationale that I am asking for, could you also write what you think your deputy means?
> > If you could do that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> My overiding concern in this case is that IMO there could be the potential for others to think that prefacing with {I believe} could make a statement of the same nature as the statement in question be approved to post here by you.
> This could open the door IMO for the potential for other to post racist other doctrins that could lead one to feel put down by prefacing them with {I believe}.
> You write that one match can start a forest fire. I am asking you to post something now in the thread where the post in question is to indicate that you are now in dialog concerning as to if you want the post to stand or not because there may be the potential according to the thinking of a Jewish person here, that the post may lead a Jew to feel put down.
> I think that if you do that, then my fear of the potential for others to think that they have approval from you to write posts that are unacceptable that are asked to be rephrased as a condition to continue posting, as in the same nature as the one in question, to be acceptable by prefacing with {I believe}.
> I am also asking that since the nature of my concern is a serious issue here with me, that if you are not going to notate the post as unacceptable in some manner, that we have an impartial third party involved in this discussion .
> Lou PIlder

Dr. Hsiung,
If you are going to reply here, could you take into consideration in any reply the following statements by yourself that have been posted here?
1. I don't think that it is supportive even to state an opinion that(uncivil statement redacted). Please don't state opionions like that.
And comming from the bible doesn't necessarily make it supportive, either.
2. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it's true--if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it.
Lou Pilder

 

Re: Lou's request

Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2007, at 2:11:52

In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2007, at 16:33:29

> you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}

But that is in fact one of the approved ways of posting religious beliefs here:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html

Bob

 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 8:04:43

In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2007, at 2:11:52

> > you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}
>
> But that is in fact one of the approved ways of posting religious beliefs here:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> Bob

Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...one of the approved ways of expressing religious belief here...(is to preface it with {I believe}...]
That is one of the approved ways as long as the statement in question follows your other statement in the same post:
[...if the foundation of a faith {puts down} those of other faiths, its not in my view supportive...discussed elsewhere...].
Then in your other post titled [Re: guidlines and exceptions] for the faith board, you wrote on October 25, 2002 the following and I have not seen a change in your policy since then:
[...Yes. And it is fine to talk about {what you believe}-->as long as you don't |put down| other beliefs<...].
Your post and that statement by you is the second to the last paragraph in that post.
Then your last paragraph in that post is that [...open to feedback..do what I think will be good for the community as a whole...].
I feel put down when I read the statement in question because of the grammatical structure of the statement in question and the guideline here is that it is fine to post what you believe {as long as you don't >put down< those of other beliefs}. If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}. The statement brings in IMO a foundation of Jewdaism and a foundation of Christianity in contrast by the author's use of the law given by Moses. I feel put down when I read that contrast posted on a mental health forum that has the owner's guideline to not post what {could lead one of another faith to feel put down}. When two things are contrasted, and there is the potential for the contrast IMO to be interpreted as that one is lacking what the other is claiming to have, then that IMHO could lead those that do not accept the claimes of the one to feel put down.
Lou Pilder



 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 20:19:14

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 8:04:43

> > > you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}
> >
> > But that is in fact one of the approved ways of posting religious beliefs here:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...one of the approved ways of expressing religious belief here...(is to preface it with {I believe}...]
> That is one of the approved ways as long as the statement in question follows your other statement in the same post:
> [...if the foundation of a faith {puts down} those of other faiths, its not in my view supportive...discussed elsewhere...].
> Then in your other post titled [Re: guidlines and exceptions] for the faith board, you wrote on October 25, 2002 the following and I have not seen a change in your policy since then:
> [...Yes. And it is fine to talk about {what you believe}-->as long as you don't |put down| other beliefs<...].
> Your post and that statement by you is the second to the last paragraph in that post.
> Then your last paragraph in that post is that [...open to feedback..do what I think will be good for the community as a whole...].
> I feel put down when I read the statement in question because of the grammatical structure of the statement in question and the guideline here is that it is fine to post what you believe {as long as you don't >put down< those of other beliefs}. If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}. The statement brings in IMO a foundation of Jewdaism and a foundation of Christianity in contrast by the author's use of the law given by Moses. I feel put down when I read that contrast posted on a mental health forum that has the owner's guideline to not post what {could lead one of another faith to feel put down}. When two things are contrasted, and there is the potential for the contrast IMO to be interpreted as that one is lacking what the other is claiming to have, then that IMHO could lead those that do not accept the claimes of the one to feel put down.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote that one of the approved ways to post on the faith board is to preface with {I believe}.
Looking at the example cited, we find that an acceptable statement is:
[...I believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost...]
And in the same list of examples you write that it is fine to post what you belive as long as it does not put down those of another faith.
I agree with you that the example of [..I believe in the Father...] is a civil statement. For it is only when, according to your TOS here, when the belief puts down one of another faith that the statement is uncivil. And I find no uncivilness with the statement that you give as an example. This is because the statement,[...I believe in the Father...] does not {put down} those of another faith in as much as if someone posted that they belived in their God that was different from the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. The mission of the forum is for posts that are concerning the service and worship of God and different people could have different Gods and that is not uncivil here. Having a God that is different from amother's God is not uncivil here. Nor would it be considered here, according to what constitutes here what could put someone down, for someone to post that they believe in more than one God.
I do not feel put down because someone is of a different faith than I. I believe in religious freedom. But it when the statement of belief puts down another faith, then that, according to your TOS, is not covered to be acceptable here by just prefacing the statement with {I believe}. If that was the case, one could post anything that could have the potential to put down those of another faith and preface it with {I belive} and it would be acceptable here, but you have posted that your idea of civility is that to you [... it does not matter if someone believes something--if it is uncivil, they shouldn't post it...]. And, [...if a belief puts down those of another faith it is not supportive...].
A ststement of what a person believes puts down another faith by particular generally accepted criteria. One of those criteria has the potential to cause those of another faith to feel inferior when they read the particular statement. This is generally done historically by claiming superiority of their religion in some way toward another religion. The statement,[I believe in the Father...] I do not consider to invoke any superiority unless it is contrasted to another faith so that the other faith could be contrasted as lacking what the other faith claims to have.
In the statement in question, the law of Moses, which the Jews cherish to them, is in contrast. That statement IMO has the potential to be considered to be different from someone posting that they [...believe in the Father...]. Believing [...in the Father the Son ...] does not put down Jews or anyone else IMHO because one believes that, for to respect other's faiths here is part of the civilty code. It is when a statement could have the potential to be considered to not respect another's faith, then that IMO has the potential to be considered to put down those of that other faith.
Another criteria for determining what could have the potential to lead one of a faith to feel put down is if { I would like to this one by email if anyone would like}
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

>
>

 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-C

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 7:55:03

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 20:19:14

> > > > you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}
> > >
> > > But that is in fact one of the approved ways of posting religious beliefs here:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...one of the approved ways of expressing religious belief here...(is to preface it with {I believe}...]
> > That is one of the approved ways as long as the statement in question follows your other statement in the same post:
> > [...if the foundation of a faith {puts down} those of other faiths, its not in my view supportive...discussed elsewhere...].
> > Then in your other post titled [Re: guidlines and exceptions] for the faith board, you wrote on October 25, 2002 the following and I have not seen a change in your policy since then:
> > [...Yes. And it is fine to talk about {what you believe}-->as long as you don't |put down| other beliefs<...].
> > Your post and that statement by you is the second to the last paragraph in that post.
> > Then your last paragraph in that post is that [...open to feedback..do what I think will be good for the community as a whole...].
> > I feel put down when I read the statement in question because of the grammatical structure of the statement in question and the guideline here is that it is fine to post what you believe {as long as you don't >put down< those of other beliefs}. If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}. The statement brings in IMO a foundation of Jewdaism and a foundation of Christianity in contrast by the author's use of the law given by Moses. I feel put down when I read that contrast posted on a mental health forum that has the owner's guideline to not post what {could lead one of another faith to feel put down}. When two things are contrasted, and there is the potential for the contrast IMO to be interpreted as that one is lacking what the other is claiming to have, then that IMHO could lead those that do not accept the claimes of the one to feel put down.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that one of the approved ways to post on the faith board is to preface with {I believe}.
> Looking at the example cited, we find that an acceptable statement is:
> [...I believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost...]
> And in the same list of examples you write that it is fine to post what you belive as long as it does not put down those of another faith.
> I agree with you that the example of [..I believe in the Father...] is a civil statement. For it is only when, according to your TOS here, when the belief puts down one of another faith that the statement is uncivil. And I find no uncivilness with the statement that you give as an example. This is because the statement,[...I believe in the Father...] does not {put down} those of another faith in as much as if someone posted that they belived in their God that was different from the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. The mission of the forum is for posts that are concerning the service and worship of God and different people could have different Gods and that is not uncivil here. Having a God that is different from amother's God is not uncivil here. Nor would it be considered here, according to what constitutes here what could put someone down, for someone to post that they believe in more than one God.
> I do not feel put down because someone is of a different faith than I. I believe in religious freedom. But it when the statement of belief puts down another faith, then that, according to your TOS, is not covered to be acceptable here by just prefacing the statement with {I believe}. If that was the case, one could post anything that could have the potential to put down those of another faith and preface it with {I belive} and it would be acceptable here, but you have posted that your idea of civility is that to you [... it does not matter if someone believes something--if it is uncivil, they shouldn't post it...]. And, [...if a belief puts down those of another faith it is not supportive...].
> A ststement of what a person believes puts down another faith by particular generally accepted criteria. One of those criteria has the potential to cause those of another faith to feel inferior when they read the particular statement. This is generally done historically by claiming superiority of their religion in some way toward another religion. The statement,[I believe in the Father...] I do not consider to invoke any superiority unless it is contrasted to another faith so that the other faith could be contrasted as lacking what the other faith claims to have.
> In the statement in question, the law of Moses, which the Jews cherish to them, is in contrast. That statement IMO has the potential to be considered to be different from someone posting that they [...believe in the Father...]. Believing [...in the Father the Son ...] does not put down Jews or anyone else IMHO because one believes that, for to respect other's faiths here is part of the civilty code. It is when a statement could have the potential to be considered to not respect another's faith, then that IMO has the potential to be considered to put down those of that other faith.
> Another criteria for determining what could have the potential to lead one of a faith to feel put down is if { I would like to this one by email if anyone would like}
> Lou Pilder
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
Dr. Hsiung,
In regards to your statement here that one of the ways that a statement could be approved is to preface it with {I believe}, that is one of the ways as long as, according to your policy of civility here, it does not put down one of another faith.
This is further exemplified by you in that you posted on the opening page of the faith forum what Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about Christians and that it said in some way (or belief) here. The statement was one that I objected to you about on the grounds that it could have the potential IMO to arrouse anti-Christian feelings and put down Christians. You agreed because you wrote that I has a rightfull objection and it was directly to the text and took it off the page and placed it in a table of contents that required one to click on a link to to see it. The overiding issue here is that what you cited from Rousseau's writings was in some way said by you as reflecting a belief or thinking here. Since you agreed that the statement about Christians was not acceptable, even though it had the potential for one here to think it was said to be in some way the belief here, it was placed in a manner so that one could not see it directly without clicking to another part of the page to a table of contents, even if it was a belief.
As to that it is one way to post something about your faith by prefacing it with {I believe}, that could also be understood in the light that you also have on the opening page of the faith forum that [...tolerance should be given ...>as long as<...(and one duty of citizenship is to be civil)...]. So I see that one way a faith could be posted in by prefacing it with {I believe} is that the statement prefaced is {tolerant} to other faiths and civil.
Then in your list of what is not acceptable here, you write that one can not post that[...]. It is understood IMO that if a faith-based group teaches somethng, that those that are members of that group IMO have the potential to generrally {believe} what is taught because it is a tenet of that group's faith. In other words, would it be required for one to say that they believe something if it is a tenet of the faith that the member is saying that they are members of? So I see in your example to use the preface {I believe} to have the potential IMO to mean that the person writing such is saying that they are a member of that faith that has that tenet ( or foundation of that faith) that they believe, and that I agree with you is indeed civil [as long as that tenet (or foundation) does not put down those of another faith as in your example of your agreeing in regards to the statement in question by you by Jean Jacques Rousseau.].
The statement from Jean Jacques Rousseau that had the potential IMO to arrouse anti-Christian feelings was taken off the direct text. I guess if we use that example as a precedent here, it could also be acceptble here to place the statement in question in a table of contents. But if you did that, could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
Lou PIlder

> >
>
>

 

Re: Lou's reply

Posted by Dr. Bob on March 24, 2007, at 12:52:29

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 8:04:43

> I feel put down when I read the statement in question

I see that as separate from the rephrase, so please use the notification button to follow up on that. Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Lou Pilder

Posted by madeline on March 24, 2007, at 13:57:02

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 8:04:43

Lou,

You wrote
"If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}."

I understand where you are coming from and I am just going to simply ask you to consider another intepretation of the world "but" as not indicating a contrast rather see it as exactly the same as the word "and", when linking two logical elements together.

In his book "Logic with added reasoning" Michael Gabbay makes the case neither "but" nor "and" changes the truth of either element.

Please look at the two examples:

Molly went to the store and Molly cleaned her house.

In this sentence "Molly cleaned her house" and "Molly went to the store" are both true. The fact that she did one did not make the other false.

Now consider this sentence:

Molly went to the store but molly cleaned her house.

In this sentence, "molly still went to the store" AND "molly still cleaned her house" Both are still true, the use of the word "but" didn't change the "truth" of either statement.

This is because, "but" and "and" are logical equivalents to each other - neither changes the veracity of the the elements they connect, they simply connect them.

I hope you will consider this aspect of logic when thinking about the post in question. I think neither its intent, nor its grammatical structure impinge on the fundamental beliefs of which you speak.

Again, I do understand what you say, and hope that you will consider the thoughts above when further considering this manner.

I have said all I wanted to say.

Best
Maddie

 

Lou's response to aspects of madeline's post-KJV

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2007, at 16:07:17

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- Lou Pilder, posted by madeline on March 24, 2007, at 13:57:02

Friends,
It is written here,[...I understand where you are comming from...I am going to ask you to consider another interpretion...not indicating a {contrast}... (but and and) neither...changes the truth of either...they {connect} them...one does not make the other false...I do understand what you say...]
As to the looking at a quote, people generally see what is in the quote. But you do bring up a good point here. This is because those that have an understanding that the King James version of the bibile, if that is the bible that you used the quote from, is that the quote was translated from the Greek language into the KIng James English and that the conjunction , be it and or but, is not in the statement in the Greek text from which the quote you posted was translated. The Greek language can have situations where translation into another language could lead to situations as the bibile verse that you posted and translators sometimes add their own words. These words added are generally put in italics in the King James version of the bible and other versions of the bible.
Lou

 

Lou's response to aspects of madeline's post-ital

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2007, at 17:20:28

In reply to Lou's response to aspects of madeline's post-KJV, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2007, at 16:07:17

> Friends,
> It is written here,[...I understand where you are comming from...I am going to ask you to consider another interpretion...not indicating a {contrast}... (but and and) neither...changes the truth of either...they {connect} them...one does not make the other false...I do understand what you say...]
> As to the looking at a quote, people generally see what is in the quote. But you do bring up a good point here. This is because those that have an understanding that the King James version of the bibile, if that is the bible that you used the quote from, is that the quote was translated from the Greek language into the KIng James English and that the conjunction , be it and or but, is not in the statement in the Greek text from which the quote you posted was translated. The Greek language can have situations where translation into another language could lead to situations as the bibile verse that you posted and translators sometimes add their own words. These words added are generally put in italics in the King James version of the bible and other versions of the bible.
> Lou

Friends,
People generally see what is in a quote. There are those however, that may have knowlege of the quote in question to mean something else. But here we have a diverse population and so there are those that see the quote as it is written but in respect to all of this, there is another aspect about this.
This is in relation to that that I do not know how to use italics here, if they can be used. I guess one could put a post in a link somehow and have it posted here with italics? This may explaine why I use many of the keyboard graphic symbols here, as to replace italics. If there is a way to use italics here, I would appreciate any help from someone to show me how to use them here except by using a link.
So without italics, the conjunction {could} be seen by some others as being part of the verse in question.
It is my understanding that it is what {could} be the interpretation of a statement here as it can {be seen}.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2007, at 13:07:23

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-C, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 7:55:03

> could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?

Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.

Bob

 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-Feb 28 Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 6:32:56

In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2007, at 13:07:23

> > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
>
> Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
>
> Bob

DR. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
Lou PIlder

 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-Feb 28-continued

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 16:52:27

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-Feb 28 Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 6:32:56

> > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> >
> > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> >
> > Bob
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> Lou PIlder

Dr. Hsiung,
In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
The poster wrote,
[...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
How's that?
You replied and posted;
[..I think that's good, thanks...]
The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
Here is the link to the post of your action
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2007, at 21:14:50

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-Feb 28-continued, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 16:52:27

> > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> The poster wrote,
> [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> How's that?
> You replied and posted;
> [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> Here is the link to the post of your action
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> Lou Pilder
>

Dr. Hsiung,
I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such.
I am leaving the forum at this time, and will need a lot of time for these unresolved issues to dissipate. I with the forum the best and I am asking members to not email me.
Lou Pilder

 

Re: Lou's reply

Posted by Dr. Bob on September 25, 2007, at 3:46:45

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2007, at 21:14:50

> I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such.
> I am leaving the forum at this time, and will need a lot of time for these unresolved issues to dissipate. I with the forum the best and I am asking members to not email me.

Thanks, and best wishes,

Bob

 

Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung Lou Pilder

Posted by Jamal Spelling on September 26, 2007, at 13:32:56

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2007, at 21:14:50

> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such.
> I am leaving the forum at this time, and will need a lot of time for these unresolved issues to dissipate. I with the forum the best and I am asking members to not email me.
> Lou Pilder

I will miss you, Lou. I have always found your posts interesting and your perseverence inspiring.

Jamal

 

Lou's reply to Jamal-litningoutofthest Jamal Spelling

Posted by Lou PIlder on October 13, 2007, at 21:10:22

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung Lou Pilder, posted by Jamal Spelling on September 26, 2007, at 13:32:56

> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such.
> > I am leaving the forum at this time, and will need a lot of time for these unresolved issues to dissipate. I with the forum the best and I am asking members to not email me.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> I will miss you, Lou. I have always found your posts interesting and your perseverence inspiring.
>
> Jamal

Jamal,
I am sorry to have had to take a leave from the community to those like yourself that found my posts interesting and my perseverence inspirimg.
What did you find that held your attention? How were you exalted and by what topic or post by me?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Jamal-litningoutofthest Lou PIlder

Posted by Jamal Spelling on October 15, 2007, at 12:52:21

In reply to Lou's reply to Jamal-litningoutofthest Jamal Spelling, posted by Lou PIlder on October 13, 2007, at 21:10:22

> > > Dr. Hsiung,
> > > I am withdrawing all of my requests to you for clarification and such.
> > > I am leaving the forum at this time, and will need a lot of time for these unresolved issues to dissipate. I with the forum the best and I am asking members to not email me.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > I will miss you, Lou. I have always found your posts interesting and your perseverence inspiring.
> >
> > Jamal
>
> Jamal,
> I am sorry to have had to take a leave from the community to those like yourself that found my posts interesting and my perseverence inspirimg.
> What did you find that held your attention? How were you exalted and by what topic or post by me?

Nothing in particular and everything in general. You made great effort to understand the semantics of things being said.

I also found those posts where you spoke about your personals interests and yourself fun to read.

Jamal

 

Lou's reminder

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2009, at 14:25:07

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-Feb 28-continued, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 16:52:27

> > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> The poster wrote,
> [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> How's that?
> You replied and posted;
> [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> Here is the link to the post of your action
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> Lou Pilder
>

Mr. Hsiung,
I am reinstituting my requests to you here.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reminder of the reminder-ptustn?

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 16, 2009, at 17:37:06

In reply to Lou's reminder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2009, at 14:25:07

> > > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > DR. Hsiung,
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> > The poster wrote,
> > [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> > "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> > How's that?
> > You replied and posted;
> > [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> > The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> > Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> > You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> > If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> > As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> > Here is the link to the post of your action
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> > Lou Pilder
> >
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am reinstituting my requests to you here.
> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure, the above
Lou Pilder

 

:Lou's reminder of the reminder to the reminder

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2009, at 5:14:28

In reply to Lou's reminder of the reminder-ptustn?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 16, 2009, at 17:37:06

> > > > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > DR. Hsiung,
> > > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > > > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > > > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > > > Lou PIlder
> > >
> > > Dr. Hsiung,
> > > In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> > > The poster wrote,
> > > [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> > > "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> > > How's that?
> > > You replied and posted;
> > > [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> > > The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> > > Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> > > You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> > > If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> > > As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> > > Here is the link to the post of your action
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > I am reinstituting my requests to you here.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure, the above
> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure, the above. Also, could you post here if because this is the third consecutive post by me , then if you or someone else does not post here then I can not post another reminder? If that is the case, could you post your rationale for such a rule here?
Lou Pilder

 

Re: :Lou's reminder of the reminder to the reminde

Posted by Partlycloudy on August 21, 2009, at 6:06:46

In reply to :Lou's reminder of the reminder to the reminder, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2009, at 5:14:28

Good one, Lou!

 

Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-phozder75c2

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2011, at 4:32:57

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung-Feb 28-continued, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2007, at 16:52:27

> > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> The poster wrote,
> [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> How's that?
> You replied and posted;
> [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> Here is the link to the post of your action
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder policy for outstanding requests, the above.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-ukhuhntrb

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:13:00

In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-phozder75c2, posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2011, at 4:32:57

> > > > > could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I'd like to focus on moving forward.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > DR. Hsiung,
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by your reply to me,[...I'd like to focus on moving forward...].
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {move} is to {proceed}. I also would like to move or proceed if that is the meaning that you are wanting to mean here.
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {forward} is that one is {going toward a goal}. The goal in our discussion that goes back to at least February 28, 2007 is concerning your action that you have taken in posting that you think that it is good for a member here to preface a statement that is not approved with {I believe} to have it approved by you here when you have posted your standard here that it doesn't matter if one believes something to make an unapproved statement approved. If this is going to be the case from here on, could one could post statements that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel accused and/or put down and preface them with {I believe}to be approved by you?
> > > One of the generally accepted meanings of {focus} is to give rise to an image that is clearly perceived. I also agree with you that we could go forward to have our discussion achieve a clear perception of the actions that you have taken, your policy in your TOS, your rules, and your rationales for what we are discussing here.
> > > If you are taking the position that a Jew could not be led to feel accused and/or put down by reading the statement in question, then I would like for you to post here (A)your rationale for that including the generally accepted meaning of {put down} in any reply to me here and (B) the generally accepted meaning of the conjunction {but} and the grenerally accepted meaning of {came by} and (C) the use of the statement in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used for centuries and (D) to do a search using [replacement theology,millions] to include what you could read in that search as pertaing to millions of Jews in relation to {replacement theology}.
> > > Then, if after you could do that, could you post here any authority that says that a Jew is not likely to feel put down when the statement in question has been used for 2000 years to promulgate {replacement theology}?
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > In continueing my reply to your reply to me, let us look at the rephrase that is in question as to {the action that you have taken}.
> > The poster wrote,
> > [...I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> > "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."...]
> > How's that?
> > You replied and posted;
> > [..I think that's good, thanks...]
> > The discussion that we have been having since February 28, 2007 has me having a want to focus on your rationale for what you posted to the member and the action that you have taken and the policy of yours and the rules here.
> > Looking at your reply to the member, you write,[...That's good...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that. Is it good that the member has that belief? If so, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean then as that you have in your TOS that you would like members to trust you because you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. It is this aspect of your policy and your rationale and the action that you have taken that is what I would like to bring into focus here for I am unsure as to what the picture could be as to what you have posted in regards to that you have also posted here that {...it doesn't matter if you believe it...].
> > You have also posted here something like ,[...it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported...]. I am also trying to use that statement by you to bring into focus all of your actions and rationales and policy and rules here.
> > If your action in question here is for the members of the community to think it is to be good in your thinking to be good for the community as a whole, and that members trust you as to the actions that you do, is it then a condition for me as a Jew to be a member here by accepting that you think that it is good that the member believes that, and that it is also good for the community as a whole to expell me from the community if I was to post that my God has revealed to {me} a commandment {that I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)?
> > As far as you posting in regards to your statement something like that you have nothing to add {at this time}, could you have anything to add at this time? And in regards to your statement something like{ that would be bringing the past into the present}, there has been a past where Jews were expelled from their country because they were Jews, which meant that they believe that their God has given (them) a commandment that (they) XXX (the foundation of Judaism). Is that {past} being brought into the present?
> > Here is the link to the post of your action
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder policy for outstanding requests, the above.
> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to that if someone wants to know your rationale and such, to keep reminding you, the above requests and concerns of mine are outstanding. I think that it could go a long way to helping Jews and others from being bullied in schools and other places if you were to address my concerns here about what could have the potential in posts to arouse antisemitic feelings and have the potential for others that take mind-altering drugs that could induce a mind-alterd state to compel the one taking the drug(s) to kill themselves amd/or others. For if they see that statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings are allowed to stand, one could IMHO think the forum is fostering replacement theology by you as saying {that's good}, that there is the potential IMHO for the one going to kill others to target a Jew if they read the posts in question here as considering those statements in question to be supportive as being alllowed to stand.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-uehylwhegt

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2012, at 6:38:53

In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-ukhuhntrb, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:13:00

Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your stated policy that it is fine to discuss actions that you take, your rationales, feedback, reminders etc, the above requests from me are outstanding.
Now {replacement theology} as I see that it could have the potential IMHO to be thought to be promoted by you here by some people that could think that what you wrote here, (that's good) in question is what it is as I am requesting the clarification so as to be clearer concerning this here.
You see, there could be a correlation to what you have written here and Jews being targeted for murder. I base this on the potential for people taking mind-altering drugs to find their way to your site via a search and then they could read your post here in question along with other statements by you here in the same mind-set concerning Jews and others that do not accept the claims that are in question here that you are allowing to stand.
Now when an internet community owner writes what could have the potential for some others to think that one faith is better or superior in some way to other faiths, by the nature that what is written could mean that one faith supercedes or replaces another faith, this could have the potential IMHHO to give some people (false) superiority feelings and then if their mind is taken over by the drug to have them want to kill themselves and/or others and even commit mass-murder, they could think to target a Jew or any of the other people that reject the claim in question that you write that you {think that's good} for you say that you do what in your thinking what will be good for the community as a whole and they could act on that claim by you as being that it comes from a psychiatrist, it could have some sort of swaying power IMO to induce an endorsment of what you say is good. They could also think that it is supportive because you say that support takes precedence and you not only allow the statement in queston, you state {that's good}.
Now at this point, there are numerous outstanding requests from me and outstanding notifications. My concern now is to what your intent here could be. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
A. Are you aware that I am experiancing emotional distress due to that there are numerous requests from me to you that are outstanding and that I could be a victim of antisemitic violence until you act on my requests and notifications?
B. Are you aware of the historical parallels of when communities allowed statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings?
C. Have you been contacted by any police agency to see if those that have killed others in schools, shopping centers, killed their children, killed government employees, etc, as were on mind-altering drugs given to them by psychiatrists, that have visited your site? (I realize that if a police agency has contacted you to see if a murderer has visited your site that it could be confidential). But if they have, then there is the potential IMO that they could have it planted in their mind to kill a Jew by the nature that you are allowing statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings to stand. I do not accept any reasoning by you to allow that here.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's request-seeking Partlycloudy Partlycloudy

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 6, 2013, at 5:40:51

In reply to Re: :Lou's reminder of the reminder to the reminde, posted by Partlycloudy on August 21, 2009, at 6:06:46

> Good one, Lou!

Partlycloudy,
If this comes up in your inbox, could you post from your perspective here in relation to the following posts?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090813/msgs/913286.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1013908.html


This is the end of the 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.