![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 53 to 77 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
In reply to Lou's reply-ehyphoartaght » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:48
> > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
>
> You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
>
> I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 23:15:36
In reply to Re: Hatred and Being Jewish., posted by Phillipa on September 19, 2013, at 21:08:02
> Nothing to do with being Jewish as have many Jewish friends and this is in real life and have known none that feel threatened due to their religion. Phillipa
Hatred still exists around the world, and is propagated and nurtured through separation and propaganda. I would like to see connections made to antisemitism in the Psycho-Babble community, if there are any. Invisibility is a friend to persecution. I see no effort being made to uncover these connections.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 9:59:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
> > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> >
> > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> >
> > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
>
> What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
>
> Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
>
> I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-violence, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 9:59:33
> > > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> > >
> > > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> > >
> > > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
> >
> > What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
> >
> > Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
> >
> > I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
> There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.htmlMr Hsiung,
In regards to your request to me to furnish you links of post that you will examine, the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list. Here is the link to that post that you wanted identified by the link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.htmlNow that post has the following from me that has outstanding requests from me to you. If you could answer those, then I could choose another link for us to go on.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob./org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 19:01:44
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heyt, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
> > > > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> > > >
> > > > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> > > >
> > > > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
> > >
> > > What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
> > >
> > > Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
> > >
> > > I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
> > There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.html
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In regards to your request to me to furnish you links of post that you will examine, the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list. Here is the link to that post that you wanted identified by the link.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> Now that post has the following from me that has outstanding requests from me to you. If you could answer those, then I could choose another link for us to go on.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob./org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.htmlcorrection:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:01:15
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heyt, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
> the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.htmlI consider that OK. Yes, in #5 she only said "Christ", but in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 11:52:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:01:15
> > the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> I consider that OK. Yes, in #5 she only said "Christ", but in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that you consider the statement in question to be {OK}. That does not mean that it is supportive, but what you say is that {OK} means {acceptable}. If it is acceptable, that means that you consider it acceptable. It does not mean that others could think that it is not acceptable. This brings up as to what is the standard, if any, for a statement to be acceptable here. The standards could be understood by your terms of service as given in your FAQ, one which states:
[..do not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down...]and another is that you say that if there is a conflict between anything posted, that support takes precedence. Since you say that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to be posted anyway since you say it is acceptable, then my question still remains as to what is your rationale for allowing a statement that is not supportive to be considered to be acceptable by you here. Let's see what the statement could lead others to think. Here is the statement:top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Now "worst" literally means "bad". So there could be a subset of people that read the statement and could think that religions that foster any agendas that are not centered in Christ are bad. Or they could think that there is a ranking of religions and that those people that belong to religions that foster an agenda other than one that is centered in Christ are in a bad religion or are bad people, for they belong to a bad religion.
This could lead to a hostile environment here for Jews, people of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Taoism and all other religions that foster an agenda not centered in Christ, because you say it is acceptable to post the statement in question here, which insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that foster an agenda not centered in Christ. By you saying that the statement is acceptable, some could think that you are saying that hate is acceptable to be posted here, for it is allowed to be thought that religions other than those that foster agendas centered in Christ are bad religions or that those people that belong to such religions are bad people by the nature that it can be seen as supportive since the statement is allowed to stand and there is not a post by you in the thread where the statement appears where you say that the statement is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway as being acceptable.
Now if hate could be spawned by allowing the statement in question to stand as supportive, as that is how it can be seen now, could hate also be spawned here if you posted in that thread that you do not consider the statement to be supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway? I would like for you to post that there and then I will post my response to you there. You could also post your rationale for allowing it to stand as acceptable but not supportive and why you do not consider the statement to be an insult to Judaism and Islam and the others so that people can respond to you there unless you do consider the statement to be an insult to those faiths, in which you could post your rationale, if any, for allowing the insult to stand as acceptable.
In regards to you saying that the poster wrote in #7,
[To make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with Bible or other scripture]
I say, so what?
That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.
There are religions that make it up as they go along, but Judaism and Islam and others are fixed and do not make things up as they go along. And there are religions that have no concern for alignment with scripture, but that is not Judaism or Islam or others that adhere to their scripture's principles.
What could be thought by reading #7 is that since the poster says that she is a member of the Latter Day Saints, (LDS) sometimes called the Mormon Church, that they use the Bible and {other scriptures}. The other scriptures are books that Joseph Smith in the 18oo's claim were given to him from God and it is my understanding that the LDS say that those books supersede the Bible books, or they trump the Bible books. One is called the book of Mormon which is supposedly aligning the scriptures in the Bible by his further revelation from that book and others.
By you saying that the statement in question is acceptable to be posted here, then you also say that you take responsibility for what you post. I think that there is a subset of people that could have anti-Semitic feelings aroused in them when they read that post that you say is acceptable by you. And I think that they could have hatred induced in them when they read it because it could be thought to delegate Jews and others into a class of bad or worst or that Christianity is superior to Judaism or Islam and others faiths that foster an agenda not centered in Christ, and that you say it is acceptable to post here.
Those that could receive the inducement of hate that I think could be fostered here by you saying that the statement is acceptable, according to psychologists could transfer that hate to others, even themselves and/or others, even commit mass-murder. I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction, and I know that as long as people are steered to think that one religion has a higher ranking than all others, or that people are bad that belong to Judaism, Islam and other faiths that do not accept the claim in question that hatred could be induced into some that believe that to be true. And when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to? And where they find themselves by them allowing you and your previous deputies to steer them there, they could find one that says to them, "Judge not, for you will be judged."
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-judgnt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 11:52:16
> > in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
>
> I say, so what?
> That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.> "Judge not, for you will be judged."
It's a separate list, but I saw it as showing that she wasn't judging.
> I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction
> when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to?
It's a good question, how to steer people. I don't know if there's a simple answer.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 15:55:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
> > > in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
> >
> > I say, so what?
> > That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.
>
> > "Judge not, for you will be judged."
>
> It's a separate list, but I saw it as showing that she wasn't judging.
>
> > I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction
>
> > when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to?
>
> It's a good question, how to steer people. I don't know if there's a simple answer.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You say that it was a separate list and what you saw in her statement wasn't judging. I say, so what?
As to whatever you see in #7 is to if you are using whatever it is to legitimize insulting Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the other faiths that foster an agenda not centered on Christ, I have not seen anything that you have posted here that points that out. In fact the statement in #7, which says;
[To make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with Bible or other scripture]
is speaking of a separate reason for being a worst. If you do not think that is judging, that is not at issue here. What is at issue is that the standard here is not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused and that if there is conflict, support takes precedence. You say the statement is not supportive but you are going to allow it anyway on the basis that you say it is acceptable. And the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths. If that is so, then all members could continue to post not only that, but anything that is analogous to what the statement purports, for you now say that what is analogous is the same as.
But the statement could spark a fire that could cause a forest fire and you say that you do not wait to put that out. So the fire of hate can spread here since you will not put it out. I see no reason to say that what is not supportive is acceptable here because your terms of service state to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And when I joined here, I read that and took you at your word. Then go ahead and post in that thread that the statement is not supportive but you accept it to be posted anyway and give your rationale for allowing to be posted what is not supportive. Then I will post my response to you there.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
> legitimize insulting Judaism
I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
Tough call.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2013, at 10:58:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
> > legitimize insulting Judaism
>
> I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
>
> The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
>
> Tough call.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote that you are not insulted, but disagree.
People reading what is in question can both disagree and be insulted or feel insulted. What is an insult is what it is regardless if one disagrees with what the insult purports.
In this case, the agenda of Judaism is in the "worst", which is the superlative of "bad" . It is the most bad, the worst as the poster writes. That is acceptable here according to Mr Hsiung. It is not acceptable here to me, for I feel insulted when I read the statement in question. As a Jew, we think life takes precedence and that the agenda of Judaism is to bring life to the world forevermore. If that is the worst agenda, then (redacted b respondent).
To Life,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gauxahd » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 15:55:39
> the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 23, 2013, at 9:28:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
> > the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
>
> I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You have allowed what you admit could be seen as you wrote above.
The poster uses the word ,"worst". This can be thought by readers as that there is no other that is that bad. for insyance, how many toimes have you heard:
"That was the worst chili I have ever eaten"
"She was the worst teacher that I ever had"
"That team is the worst team in their division"
"He was the worst president of all"
" The Godzilla movies were the worst I have ever seen."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnZ6Ktjynh0
You see, readers can think from what is plainly visible as it is. I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 17:02:57
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilderdiscussion-plainlyviz, posted by Lou Pilder on September 23, 2013, at 9:28:46
> I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
I've posted that here. How about moving on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2013, at 20:06:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 17:02:57
> > I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
>
> I've posted that here. How about moving on to another statement?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I will need to prepare a reply to you for what you have posted to me. It could be so much easier for everyone IMO if you posted what I had requested in the thread where it is posted. That way, others that read the post in it's thread where it is posted could see your rationale for why you say that support takes precedence and that you are saying that it is acceptable to post what you say is not supportive. For readers could think that it is supportive as it can be seen without your explanation posted there. I think that could go a long way in preventing deaths and/or injuries that IMHO could arise by people seeing the statement in question as it can be seen that you have agreed here that the statement could be seen the way that I have posted here.
But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
Let us discuss if the post is supportive or acceptable without being supportive and your rationale for such. I also would like for you to declare if you are designating the post as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. Here is the link to the post. The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:51:21
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-bdlyhrm » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2013, at 20:06:44
> But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
Thanks for agreeing to move on.
> The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.htmlI didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm. And I thought he was making a point: if being given a new face could be considered bodily harm, being given a new mind could be considered a psychological harm.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 7:01:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:51:21
> > But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
>
> Thanks for agreeing to move on.
>
> > The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
>
> I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm. And I thought he was making a point: if being given a new face could be considered bodily harm, being given a new mind could be considered a psychological harm.
>
> BobMr suing,
You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise. For the statement reads:
[...if we met, {I would give} you a new face...].
This is not an ambiguous phrase, for there is used that the author {would give me} a new face. This is action of violence as a plausible interpretation of the statement and can reasonably be interpreted as it can be seen by a reasonable person. I am the subject person and the action toward me is unambiguous. A new face could be interpreted as the author beating me in the face so that my face becomes unrecognizable.
But more than that, combined with that you also say that being given a new mind could be considered psychological harm.
That IMHO could put me in a false light and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against me and decrease the confidence an respect and regard toward me. This is because the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. What I have been writing about here is that I know of two way for one to overcome addiction and depression. One by human achievement and the other by divine accomplishment. Those that want to go the way of human achievement by taking mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor to overcome depression/addiction have this forum to use in that endeavor. I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit which leads them out of the darkness of depression and death into a marvelous light, for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way. A Christiandom concept o this way is called the baptism of desire.
Readers could think that the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and acceptable as it stands now. So there could be more postings of the same thing or what could even be analogous to what the statement purports. I feel by you allowing this, that it could encourage hatred toward me and give people the idea in their minds that one could justfy what is posted as that it will be good for this community as a whole, for you say for people to trust you in what you do here. I think that if people harbor any such notion in their minds to think of harming someone, that hate could be induced in them and that could thwart their efforts to overcome depression and addiction. I am here to save lives and to prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. And I know that hate induced into someone can cause depression which can lead to addiction from taking mind-altering drugs.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 17:20:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
> > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> >
> > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> >
> > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
>
> What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
>
> Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
>
> I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
In regards to our discussion as responding one at a time to my concerns in posts, I would like for you to declare as to if you are designating the following to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, or acceptable, or supportive or a combination of those or something else. If you declare that it will be good for this community as a whole for any of those, I would also like for you to state your rationale for such.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 17:57:28
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pazprk » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 17:20:59
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
>
> You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
> the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
--
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 18:52:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 17:57:28
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
> >
> > You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.
>
> I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
>
> > the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
>
> That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
>
> Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
>
> --
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
>
> That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
>
> BobMr Hsiung, You wrote,[...I didn't do anything...].
Now readers could think that what I consider to be having the potential to induce hate that the statement could induce is considered to be acceptable and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. This is all because you have posted for readers to trust you in what you do here and that you do not wait to put out a fire for one match could start a forest fire.
I am asking you to hose down the fire there that has the potential IMHO to arouse anti-Semitic feelings.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 19:04:06
In reply to Lou's reply-ugotdatballnowgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 18:52:51
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
> > >
> > > You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.
> >
> > I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
> >
> > > the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
> >
> > That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
> >
> > Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
> >
> > That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung, You wrote,[...I didn't do anything...].
> Now readers could think that what I consider to be having the potential to induce hate that the statement could induce is considered to be acceptable and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. This is all because you have posted for readers to trust you in what you do here and that you do not wait to put out a fire for one match could start a forest fire.
> I am asking you to hose down the fire there that has the potential IMHO to arouse anti-Semitic feelings.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
Now here is another. Since you have said that posts can be acceptable and not be supportive, readers could not know the difference as to if the statement in question is or is not supportive or just acceptable by you to post, even if it s not supportive and readers could know that you have posted that support takes precedence.
So I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
In reply to Lou's reply-Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozdur, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 19:04:06
> Now here is another.
> I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.htmlThat one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
> > Now here is another.
> > I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
>
> That one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I had requested that you state as to if the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, or supportive, or acceptable or a combination of those or something else.
Your answer is that [...That one I'd consider more OK than not...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly.
You are wanting your answer to mean as acceptable to post, and:
A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
B. That the statement in question is supportive, and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
C. The statement in question is supportive, but not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
D. The statement in question is not supportive, nor conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
E. none of the above.
F. A combination f the above which are:
G. All of the above
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-svellsup » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
> A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
> > A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
>
> because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
>
> Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that [...discussions of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community...]. A policy is what guides others in relation to what they post so that they can be within the guidelines of the [policy when they post in the future.
I would agree that to discuss the *policy* here is one thing, and to bring me up as suggesting that they think that I should be ostracized if I continue in posting what I have been posting, is another thing.
And I have the following question so that if the are answered, I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean here and respond accordingly.
A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
Lou Pilder
>
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.