![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 17:33:23
In reply to Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 18:52:07
In reply to Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
Lou please do not harrass Dinah. I feel you have lost touch with reality? Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on July 2, 2014, at 19:25:20
In reply to Re: Lou'd reply-ucangaux » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 18:52:07
You are a wise and perceptive woman.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 19:45:43
In reply to Thank you, sir. May I have another? (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 17:33:23
D,
In regards to your request for another one to post as to why you did not sanction the post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 20:30:58
In reply to Lou's accomodation-dephmgu » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 19:45:43
Lou not a Deputy anymore and look toward the future not the past as the pasts is gone over never to be done over. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 20:51:25
In reply to Re: Lou's accomodation-dephmgu » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 20:30:58
> Lou not a Deputy anymore and look toward the future not the past as the pasts is gone over never to be done over. Phillipa
I am giving Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record the opportunity to remediate statements that put down Jews and others, and statements that defame me. As long as they remain to be seen un repudiated, readers could think that the community could benefit from the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to be seen as civil by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
As that Dinah is not a deputy any more, that I consider a moot point because at her watch, she could have sanctioned them if she wanted to as the rules gave her. This is an opportunity for all of those deputies to post here why they did not use their power to sanction the anti-Semitic statements. If that was known, it could go a long way for them to let readers know how they justify that, if they do want to justify that, up to 6 deputies did not respond to my notifications that are to this day years outstanding. If those notifications were responded to, I think that lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided, and healing could be fostered here. I do not claim to be a faith healer, but it has been revealed to me how one could overcome all things, including addiction and depression and even death. Yet today, I am prevented by the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung to lead those that want a way out to a new life, free from depression and addiction. As far as the past, if there were no archives, that would be true in a sense. But as long as the archives exist, readers can see the un repudiated anti-Semitism and hatred posted against me, that has been revealed to me to be a detriment to those that want to be healed.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 22:17:31
In reply to Lou's reply-rkives » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 20:51:25
Well Lou since so much time has gone by. I think if there was any harm done it is long ago done and over with. How bout a truce with babble? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:49:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rkives » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2014, at 22:17:31
> I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it.
Who says you have to bend over? Stand tall and go about your business (and take it).
> Dinah experiences pain at Babble.
> Dinah does not like pain.
> Dinah does not wish to be at Babble.Being at Babble does not kill Dinah.
Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.--
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed.
>
> Dinah> How bout a truce with babble?
>
> PhillipaAppease implies demands. A truce implies a war. Both are so adversarial.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 7:06:28
In reply to To clarify » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:02:49
> I blocked myself in the hope that you would consider me suitably punished and leave me alone. Instead you did the opposite. Had you left me alone, I'd have honored my block.
>
> In case there is any doubt, I was not admitting to fostering anti-semetism. I was referring to your "anxieties" and your interpretations of my actions, posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have a long history of support of the Jewish faith and Jewish people. The idea of promoting anti-semetism is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill to see the accusations, or rather the "anxieties" about me posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> In my mind, accusing someone of something so heinous as fostering anti semetism is defamation of character. Of course, in Dr. Bob's mind, it isn't. And he runs Babble.
>
> I have admitted to having been uncivil to you, even though my intent was to argue with Dr. Bob, not to try to hurt you. I regret any hurt I might have caused you.
>
> That's *all* I regret and all I admit to.
>
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed. You will continue to post your "anxieties" towards me over and over and over and over and over again. And now you will even, again, post (gee, I wonder what the euphemism is in this case) your threats of legal action, no doubt over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> And there is nothing on earth I can do to stop it. I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.D,
You wrote,[...accusing someone of fostering anti-Semitism is defamation of character...].
I am unsure as to what you want readers to believe by you posting that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly.
A. Do you have a post, if any, that constitutes accusing you of fostering anti-Semitism that you can post a link to here?
B. Do you know, how does whatever is in that post, if there is one, accuse you of fostering anti-Semitism?
C. Do you think that if you could have posted a sanction if you wanted to when you were a deputy to statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being put down, or that a Jew that reads the statement could feel that their faith is being put down, would you consider that because you did not post a sanction and that the anti-Semitic statement(s) were then allowed to be seen as supportive and that they will be good for this community as a whole because unsanctioned statements mean that a rule has not been broken, that anti-Semitism could be fostered here because you did not post a sanction those type of statements that put down Jews?
D. Do you think that the community is improved when anti-Semitic statements are left to be seen as civil here because there is not a link from you or another deputy or Mr. Hsiung to the statement where it I posted originally as to that it is not in accordance with a rule here and is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community?
Lou
Posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 9:15:38
In reply to Lou's request-duyu » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 7:06:28
I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
In reply to Re: I just have to take it, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2014, at 2:49:31
> Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up? Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?
You seem to be able to remember for some people that this is a mental health community. But to find it difficult to remember for others.
Please be more sensitive to the fact that for some people your current way of running Babble can be harmful, and not make them stronger at all.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:38:55
In reply to Re: I just have to take it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
When I said "community", I didn't really mean community at all. I meant Bob and his policies. Nearly all of the posters at Babble are wonderful and continue to be wonderful.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:48:54
In reply to Re: I just have to take it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
> > Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
>
> That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up? Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
>
> It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?
>
> You seem to be able to remember for some people that this is a mental health community. But to find it difficult to remember for others.
>
> Please be more sensitive to the fact that for some people your current way of running Babble can be harmful, and not make them stronger at all.D,
You wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
True or False:
A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
F. more of your choice
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request-duyu » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 9:15:38
> I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 12:05:45
In reply to Lou's reply-opper » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
> LouPerhaps what it is saying is that I have no particular reason to believe in your good faith in requesting the information. After all, it seemed doubtful that you have forgotten so many of your posts made within the last month, when you seem to remember posts made years and years ago.
And whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott.
Posted by Beckett on July 3, 2014, at 14:12:55
In reply to Lou's request-ehubuz » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:48:54
> wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> True or False:
> A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> F. more of your choice
> Lou
>I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
.
This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.
Posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42
In reply to Lou's reply-opper » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42
> > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].> I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on July 3, 2014, at 18:50:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42
...if you want your head to explode.
(hello, Scott)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2014, at 19:32:58
In reply to Re: I just have to take it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47
> > Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
>
> That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up?I don't have any evidence. It's just a hypothesis.
> Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
>
> It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?I'm glad you're able to work, and to function, even if it's difficult, and requires medication, and your family worries about you. But maybe I have lower standards.
I didn't mean to say you should learn not to get so upset. Getting upset is part of life. What I'd like is if you would continue to be part of this community despite me and my policies getting you upset from time to time.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 9:44:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 12:05:45
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
> > Lou
>
> Perhaps what it is saying is that I have no particular reason to believe in your good faith in requesting the information. After all, it seemed doubtful that you have forgotten so many of your posts made within the last month, when you seem to remember posts made years and years ago.
>
> And whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott.D,
You wrote,[...whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott...]
I am unsure as to what you would want readers to believe by what you wrote about me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What in my reply to Scott shattered, and what was shattered?
B. What could be one post that I have made recently that you say that I could have forgotten and could be relevant to this discussion?
C. What is the significance, if anything, of that you have no particular reason to believe in my good faith in requesting the information?
D. True or False:
D1. If I was to post a link here, Lou, to a post that I think that you are accusing me of fostering anti-Semitism, then you could have the opportunity to post your side of that claim by me, Lou
D2. Anti-Semitism can be fostered in this community when the leaders and their deputies all allow statements that could lead a Jewish reader to feel that their faith is being put down by the statement.
D3. I did have the option of sanctioning the posts in question, Lou, but I chose not to do so and all the other deputies of record had a discussion with me and we all agreed to allow those anti-Semitic statements to stand.
D4. I will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements here that do not have a tag-line to please be civil where they are originally posted because I agree that they should be allowed to stand so that readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive here and that the tragic consequences that could happen to Jews by that hatred toward the Jews could be seen as being good for this community as a whole because those readers could know the TOS here where Mr. Hsiung says that people are to try to trust him at what he does because he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole, trumps his own rules not to post anything that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 13:04:21
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ehubuz, posted by Beckett on July 3, 2014, at 14:12:55
> > wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> > If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> > True or False:
> > A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> > B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> > C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> > D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> > E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> > F. more of your choice
> > Lou
> >
>
> I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
>
> However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
>
> There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
> .
> This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.Friends,
It is written above. And what is written could influence you to be hostile to me on the basis that there are the satems concerning my character as:
A.[...a target of accusations...] (that I can be seen as the subject person targeting)
B.[...targeting Dinah could go against some of my tenants (which could be thought to be Judaism
C.[ could not a down regulation of {conflict}..as pope *suffer*...]
D.[..your threads have a strong influence (the departure of posters)...]
E.[...Back off Dinah...].
Friends, the overriding aspect of the post here is that it carries a message to a subset of readers that I object to. The message is nothing new, but an old message, entrenched in the dogma of European fascism that some readers could know here starting with the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau where modern fascism starting in 1922 took hold of European political thought.
Many of you already know the horrors that came from that type of thinking as it had it's core in what the fascists called {the common good}. That is analogous to:
[..doing what will be good for the community as a whole...]. You see, in that type of thinking, what is right or wrong is put aside and what will be good for the country trumps all morality, all laws, and a subset of people could think that the concept of the common good to be the deciding factor as to what stands, degrades the human condition and has ruled to be a crime against humanity when that type of thinking leads to the justification of slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination, genocide and other abuses of power by a government. There is a rational basis for considering that type of thinking to be a crime against humanity because when you examine the doctrine, it says that in the case of , let's say, discrimination, that the discrimination allowed will be good for the community as a whole. But when? During the lifetime that the leaders are controlling the community? When war criminals were being hanged for saying that they were doing those things for the common good, their last words of some of them were that even though they were being hanged to their death, that what they did will be proven to be good for the country after their death.
And what is the good that is supposed to come from what abuses they did? And what is the good that is to come in some future time to this community for allowing anti-Semitic statement to be seen as civil in the thread where they are originally posted?
more...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 20:23:17
In reply to Lou's response to Beckett's post-getbak, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 13:04:21
> > > wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> > > If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> > > True or False:
> > > A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> > > B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> > > C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> > > D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> > > E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> > > F. more of your choice
> > > Lou
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
> >
> > However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
> >
> > There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
> > .
> > This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.
>
> Friends,
> It is written above. And what is written could influence you to be hostile to me on the basis that there are the satems concerning my character as:
> A.[...a target of accusations...] (that I can be seen as the subject person targeting)
> B.[...targeting Dinah could go against some of my tenants (which could be thought to be Judaism
> C.[ could not a down regulation of {conflict}..as pope *suffer*...]
> D.[..your threads have a strong influence (the departure of posters)...]
> E.[...Back off Dinah...].
> Friends, the overriding aspect of the post here is that it carries a message to a subset of readers that I object to. The message is nothing new, but an old message, entrenched in the dogma of European fascism that some readers could know here starting with the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau where modern fascism starting in 1922 took hold of European political thought.
> Many of you already know the horrors that came from that type of thinking as it had it's core in what the fascists called {the common good}. That is analogous to:
> [..doing what will be good for the community as a whole...]. You see, in that type of thinking, what is right or wrong is put aside and what will be good for the country trumps all morality, all laws, and a subset of people could think that the concept of the common good to be the deciding factor as to what stands, degrades the human condition and has ruled to be a crime against humanity when that type of thinking leads to the justification of slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination, genocide and other abuses of power by a government. There is a rational basis for considering that type of thinking to be a crime against humanity because when you examine the doctrine, it says that in the case of , let's say, discrimination, that the discrimination allowed will be good for the community as a whole. But when? During the lifetime that the leaders are controlling the community? When war criminals were being hanged for saying that they were doing those things for the common good, their last words of some of them were that even though they were being hanged to their death, that what they did will be proven to be good for the country after their death.
> And what is the good that is supposed to come from what abuses they did? And what is the good that is to come in some future time to this community for allowing anti-Semitic statement to be seen as civil in the thread where they are originally posted?
> more...
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Now what if something happens to show that the leaders that said to trust them and that they were doing what they are doing for the common good was against all law and morality? They could say that it (will be) good for the country as a whole. SO the judgment is deferred to the future. But what future? Those leaders using the mind-set of {the common good} could continue on the basis that they can't show any time frame for their actions to become fruitful, so they rely on the hope of telling the citizens to "trust me". Those that accept that actually put faith in the leader that says that. Even beyond their faith in the God that they give service and worship to. This could lead to actual worship of those that say that they are doing whatever they are doing for the common good, when what they are doing is against their own laws.
So they change their laws, or use {selective enforcement} of their laws. And protect those that worship them by allowing them to break the laws. And worse, those that see through it all, are stigmatized derogatorily and silenced or even killed. The citizens are told to ignore them.
But how long can they continue on deceiving the citizens? It can go on until circumstances arise so that the people start to see that the payoff promised by doing what will be good for the community as a whole starts to be seen as too far off and unachievable. Then they are either arrested and tried as criminals for their crimes committed under doing what will be good for the community as a whole, (the common good), or they commit suicide or are executed by the citizens themselves as they see that they were betrayed.
The hand of justice sometimes is stayed in many of the historical examples of this to give those that have allowed Jews to be humiliated and persecuted an opportunity to repudiate anti-Semitism. In any war-crimes trials, those that had an opportunity to save their lives instead killed themselves or accepted execution rather than admit that what they really wanted was to use the population to reap power and control of others. The psychology is well-documented.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:35:03
In reply to Read this thread, posted by 10derheart on July 3, 2014, at 18:50:38
> ...if you want your head to explode.
>
> (hello, Scott)10,
What do you want readers to believe by your use of {if you want your head to explode}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:49:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42
> > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
>
> > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
>
> Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2014, at 22:08:25
In reply to Lou's request- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:35:03
> > ...if you want your head to explode.
> >
> > (hello, Scott)
>
> 10,
> What do you want readers to believe by your use of {if you want your head to explode}?
> LouOh I dunno, Lou. Let's see....
Maybe I want them to take it literally.
Messy, no?
Hugs and kisses. -- therresidentevilex-deputy.....aka Horribleheart
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.