![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 637 to 661 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2014, at 23:15:46
> The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
Do you select whom you engage in ways that could lead that person to feel you are throwing a stone at them?
> Intervening more = trusting the community less.
Are gross measurements of more or less the only factor, or do when and where inform decisions? Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?
> Removing the trigger could reinforce the wish to have triggers removed, which isn't always an option.
Do you have any objective measure of that possibility, and a consistent policy for balancing the risk of reinforcement against the advantage of removing a trigger to which you exposed an invitee?
Posted by 10derheart on August 9, 2014, at 14:21:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:03:59
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-creat/dev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 8, 2014, at 21:45:58
> Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
> It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
>
> The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:16:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 9, 2014, at 13:30:32
> > The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> Do you select whom you engage in ways that could lead that person to feel you are throwing a stone at them?Yes, I select whom I sanction.
> > Intervening more = trusting the community less.
>
> Are gross measurements of more or less the only factor, or do when and where inform decisions? Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
> > Removing the trigger could reinforce the wish to have triggers removed, which isn't always an option.
>
> Do you have any objective measure of that possibility, and a consistent policy for balancing the risk of reinforcement against the advantage of removing a trigger to which you exposed an invitee?No, I don't have a measure of that possibility. Yes, my policy is to do my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 9:30:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:03:59
> > Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
>
> That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
>
> > It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
>
> I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
>
> > > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
> >
> > The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.
>
> That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...it is true that you say that the fire of hate is not contained here and can spread beyond the confines of this site...]
The truth of that could result in tragic consequences to Jews in other communities, for this site could be read by people all over the world. And there could be readers that take you at your word in your TOS/FAQ that this site is for support and education and that you use the Golden Rules in your TOS here. And more than that, you also say that you use fairness in the enforcement of your rules and in the use of the Golden Rule.
But do the facts support your claim to be fair? As long as you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you, a subset of readers could think that is false. This is supported by the fact that fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules. The concept of equal protection of the laws is the core of fairness in the U.S. constitution and other countries that used the U.S. Constitution as a basis for constructing theirs.. The use of selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination, could lead to two standards in a community so that one class of people are protected by the laws, and another class of people are not. This is well-known historically as a part of European fascism that resulted in over one hundred million deaths and counting to this day as new mass-graves are unearthed throughout Europe. The use of selective enforcement in the minds of some readers is considered by them to be a crime against humanity and is not fair.
A ubset of readers could think that it is not fair to Jews for you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated where they are originally posted and a subset of readers could see that it is plainly visible that you have not responded to my requests to act on those statements. It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
The fact that you prohibit me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me while you will not post a repudiation to the foundation of hatred toward the Jews posted here in their originality, could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is against the Jews, which is a definition of anti-Semitism, which could lead those readers to think that this is an anti-Semitic site and unfair on its face. And that there are also allowed to go un repudiated by you where defamatory posts are originally posted toward me, could lead a subset of readers to think that you are creating and developing defamation toward me which can cause harm to me as anyone else that is a victim of discrimination and defamation.
Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back. The support that those readers could see is what is plainly visible to them. And as long as they see years of outstanding notifications from me to you, they could see that what you call being fair is not consistent with community standards of fairness as exemplified by the U.S. constitution that demands equal protection of the laws and freedom of religion.
A subset of readers could consider that where religious freedom is denied, there can become stigmatization to those like myself here that is not a balm of support, but an unsound mental-health practice that is not supportive of the Golden Rule or fairness. The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 13:49:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-kstinphyr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 9:30:42
> > > Those readers could think that is a pretext to leave defamation and anti-Semitism unsanctioned as directed toward me and Jews.
> >
> > That's true, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > > It is plainly visible that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand but vulgar words are not.
> >
> > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > > > What if I watched the match to see if it sputtered out or started a fire?
> > >
> > > The fire of hate is not contained in your site because it is public. What is seen here can be carried way beyond the confines of this site for it is not a closed site for only the members.
> >
> > That's true. But what I see here isn't the fire of hate, it's the balm of support. So that's what's more likely to spread from here.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...it is true that you say that the fire of hate is not contained here and can spread beyond the confines of this site...]
> The truth of that could result in tragic consequences to Jews in other communities, for this site could be read by people all over the world. And there could be readers that take you at your word in your TOS/FAQ that this site is for support and education and that you use the Golden Rules in your TOS here. And more than that, you also say that you use fairness in the enforcement of your rules and in the use of the Golden Rule.
> But do the facts support your claim to be fair? As long as you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you, a subset of readers could think that is false. This is supported by the fact that fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules. The concept of equal protection of the laws is the core of fairness in the U.S. constitution and other countries that used the U.S. Constitution as a basis for constructing theirs.. The use of selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination, could lead to two standards in a community so that one class of people are protected by the laws, and another class of people are not. This is well-known historically as a part of European fascism that resulted in over one hundred million deaths and counting to this day as new mass-graves are unearthed throughout Europe. The use of selective enforcement in the minds of some readers is considered by them to be a crime against humanity and is not fair.
> A ubset of readers could think that it is not fair to Jews for you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated where they are originally posted and a subset of readers could see that it is plainly visible that you have not responded to my requests to act on those statements. It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
> The fact that you prohibit me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me while you will not post a repudiation to the foundation of hatred toward the Jews posted here in their originality, could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is against the Jews, which is a definition of anti-Semitism, which could lead those readers to think that this is an anti-Semitic site and unfair on its face. And that there are also allowed to go un repudiated by you where defamatory posts are originally posted toward me, could lead a subset of readers to think that you are creating and developing defamation toward me which can cause harm to me as anyone else that is a victim of discrimination and defamation.
> Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back. The support that those readers could see is what is plainly visible to them. And as long as they see years of outstanding notifications from me to you, they could see that what you call being fair is not consistent with community standards of fairness as exemplified by the U.S. constitution that demands equal protection of the laws and freedom of religion.
> A subset of readers could consider that where religious freedom is denied, there can become stigmatization to those like myself here that is not a balm of support, but an unsound mental-health practice that is not supportive of the Golden Rule or fairness. The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung
You wrote[...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...].
A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned. I guess that there could be a few on the basis of human error, but not like the deliberate use of discrimination towards me by leaving anti-Semitism and defamation toward me un repudiated by you where they are originally posted as part of your policy of acting on notifications except for some of mine. There are years of those and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to remain unsanctioned.
I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you. No reply can be interpreted by a subset of readers as constituting {evasion} by you. That is not a balm to those that want for you to disclose what could cause harm to those that are uninformed by you of changes here. The failure to disclose can be thought by a subset of readers as creating and developing unsound mental-health practices that could harm readers here. They have a rational basis for thinking that because a failure to disclose could mislead readers and act on what could be harmful to them since there could be a change that is kept from them in this site which is for support and education per the Golden Rule. The Golden rule in my faith considers failure to disclose to constitute deceit and foster what is known as {ex post facto} which could IMHO lead to deaths here and life-ruining conditions by the nature that those readers could have taken you at your word and trusted you, and the revision could show that you changed something but will not tell what the change is. Then those readers could feel betrayed as seeing that your word was changed without them being allowed to know why since there is a failure to disclose.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 22:16:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2014, at 2:16:51
> I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
To do something objectively means to measure against an objective standard rather than to measure against personal feelings or one's own opinions. In a professional context, objective standards represent the collective opinions of trained and experience peers, contrary to capricious decisions based on self-styled fiat...
> my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good ...
Do you maintain professional liability insurance against claims of harm that might result from testing the merits of an inner sense of fairness and good on human subjects outside the purview of an institutional review board?
Do you think your active role as an administrator, and claimed right to do as you want negates protection DMCA affords to moderators on other social media sites who don't make a practice of calling at-risk invitees uncivil, but simply remove content they think might not contribute to the community purpose?
Posted by pontormo on August 11, 2014, at 22:47:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 22:16:39
I don't follow.
How does copyright infringement have any relevance to Bob's handling of content that may or may not contribute to the community purpose?
Posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 23:14:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 11, 2014, at 22:47:19
> I don't follow.
>
> How does copyright infringement have any relevance to Bob's handling of content that may or may not contribute to the community purpose?My error. That would be Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA not DMCA), which similarly shields service providers from liability for statements or content posted by users, but does not shield service providers from liability the provider "take[s] responsibility for."
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phaale, posted by Lou Pilder on August 11, 2014, at 13:49:42
> you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
> It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
> fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
> selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
> Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
True, it could.
> The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
> > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
>
> A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
> I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:19:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 11, 2014, at 23:14:01
> > > Could you objectively articulate to a professional peer when and where you intervene more or less?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "objectively".
>
> To do something objectively means to measure against an objective standard rather than to measure against personal feelings or one's own opinions.I'm not sure what an objective standard of articulation would be. But I think my answer is no:
> > > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it --Potter Stewart
> >
> > To elaborate on the above a little, I do *not* mean that I have any special gift for discerning the "true" degree of civility of anyone's comments. I just can't spell it out any better. Maybe more precise than "I know it when I see it" would be "not until I see it can I know it". Also, it's subjective. Others may know it when they see it, too, and we may disagree. So maybe even more precise would be "not until I see it can I form an opinion about it".> Do you think your active role as an administrator, and claimed right to do as you want negates protection [CDA] affords to moderators on other social media sites who don't make a practice of calling at-risk invitees uncivil, but simply remove content they think might not contribute to the community purpose?
> Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ... shields service providers from liability for statements or content posted by users, but does not shield service providers from liability the provider "take[s] responsibility for."
Sorry, did I say my role negated any protection of other moderators?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2014, at 10:08:05
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
> > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
>
> > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
>
> Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
>
> > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
>
> 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
>
> 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
>
> > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
>
> True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
>
> > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
>
> The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
>
> > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
>
> How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
>
> > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
>
> I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
>
> Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You have your archives of the notifications. You can use those to act on them according to your TOS/FAQ. One way to act on them could be to act on the most recent notifications first.
As far as that you have posted that your FAQ has been revised, there are posts from me asking you what was revised and why. Your most recent revision was August 4, 2014. Look at the bottom of this page and the bottom of your FAQ page
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html
Now there are other revisions that I am also finding and I can not find any disclosures to alert readers of what the revisions are.
Since readers may not be aware of any disclosures of specific revisions by you in your TOS/FAQ, they could be misled to act unaware of the revisions that could cause harm to them and be led to believe what is not true. I think that failure to disclose what could lead to one being misled here is important for readers to know now. I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Bryte on August 12, 2014, at 20:04:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:19:25
> I'm not sure what an objective standard of articulation would be. But I think my answer is no:
>An objective standard of articulation might comprise a standard grammar test, but to objectively articulate something could mean to articulate a matter in terms of an objective standard.
For example a police officer who objectively articulates the standard against which he cited a driver for a speeding violation would cite the driver's speed in terms of miles per hour compared to the lawful speed limit at the scene of the alleged violation. Do you understand now? All the same, I can stipulate that you already said no, you cannot objectively articulate a standard against which you make allegations of uncivil behavior.
> Sorry, did I say my role negated any protection of other moderators?
>
> BobNo. My question and observation did not in any way address civil liability of moderators, but you do raise an interesting question. Do you provide professional liability insurance to protect moderators against claims that might arise from applying your subjective policies?
Even if you did answer my question in the affirmative - that you believe yourself an exempt service provider under CDA definitions - one wonders if your member-moderators could assert the same exemption to civil liability, in so far as consumers of a service can scarcely be considered providers of a service.
The "other moderators" in my question refers to moderators at other online social networks, on other domains, such as Yahoo!, facebook or Twitter, where moderators are shielded from civil liability because their role is primarily as Internet Service Providers under CDA definitions. Your role, which involves public, published insinuation that particular invitees have not been civil, differs from those where service providers merely moderate access to a service by limiting access but do not actively engage invitees in public discourse about their conduct on the service. Interaction with a clinically licensed professional acting as moderator is not part of the service on facebook.
My question asks if you consider yourself an exempt service provider under CDA definitions?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 8:57:28
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2014, at 1:07:30
> > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
>
> > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
>
> Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
>
> > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
>
> 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
>
> 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
>
> > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
>
> True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
>
> > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
>
> The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
>
> > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> >
> > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
>
> How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
>
> > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
>
> I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
>
> > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
>
> Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
A subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics here. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you make up another question for yourself, that is not the question directed to you, and then answer the made-up question which a subset of readers could think that you satisfied the original question to you. There are readers that see right through that tactic, such as myself. In the case at hand here, you write,[...I see clear *vulgarity* and you do not...].
Your reply to me was a response to that I wrote that you sanction vulgar *words* and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand by you. There could be a few due to human error or negligence by you, but the policy shows that you sanction vulgar words here. I asked for you to post a URL of one that stands unsanctioned by you.
The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words. And you write,[... I see clear vulgarity and you do not...]. I do not think that my question is answered by you, for you answered a question that I did not ask to you, (which could be something like is there vulgarity seen in the same manner as years of outstanding notifications from me concerning anti-Semitism and defamation toward me, which I did not ask you) which a subset of readers that understand evasion tactics could see. The Plain Truth is that a subset of readers could think that my question is evaded and could lead to another set of readers to think that what you have written to me is a pretext to falsely justify the allowing of anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me as being justified by you on the basis that your selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination that is an abuse of power, is also used by you in relation to your rule to not post vulgar words. This could be determined by you posting a URL of one that you allowed, which you say you will not do because the poster would think that you are throwing a stone at them. But your rule is that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times. And your TOS states that you do enforce your rules so those that receive a sanction have it known to them to follow the rules, and could not think that you are throwing a stone at them. By you writing, [...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...] does not IMHO justify you refusing to delete or sanction anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me here at my request. For even if there are some vulgar words missed by you, the harm that could come to me from anti-Semitism and defamation is not negated by you allowing some vulgar words to pass your scrutiny or even for you to allow them deliberately.
The case at hand involves your allowing to be seen as civil where it is originally posted, the anti-Semitic statement:
[...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]
The statement is analogous to:
[..No Jew will enter heaven...]
and worse:
[...Only Christians will enter heaven...].
As long as you continue to attempt to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statement as to be seen as civil where it is originally posted by not posting your tag line to it to please be civil, a subset of readers could think that could be a contributing factor in the creation and development of antisemitic hate being allowed to be fostered from this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned by you, it is not against your rules and will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking and supportive. Your use of supportive in your TOS also connects The Golden Rule with it. To allow a statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being insulted, is IMHO a perversion of the rule and an insult to humanity itself.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 9:39:55
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevay » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 8:57:28
> > > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
> >
> > > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
> >
> > Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
> >
> > > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
> >
> > 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
> >
> > 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
> >
> > > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
> >
> > True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
> >
> > > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
> >
> > True, it could.
> >
> > > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
> >
> > The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
> >
> > > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> > >
> > > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
> >
> > How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> >
> > > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
> >
> > I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
> >
> > > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
> >
> > Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> A subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics here. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you make up another question for yourself, that is not the question directed to you, and then answer the made-up question which a subset of readers could think that you satisfied the original question to you. There are readers that see right through that tactic, such as myself. In the case at hand here, you write,[...I see clear *vulgarity* and you do not...].
> Your reply to me was a response to that I wrote that you sanction vulgar *words* and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand by you. There could be a few due to human error or negligence by you, but the policy shows that you sanction vulgar words here. I asked for you to post a URL of one that stands unsanctioned by you.
> The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words. And you write,[... I see clear vulgarity and you do not...]. I do not think that my question is answered by you, for you answered a question that I did not ask to you, (which could be something like is there vulgarity seen in the same manner as years of outstanding notifications from me concerning anti-Semitism and defamation toward me, which I did not ask you) which a subset of readers that understand evasion tactics could see. The Plain Truth is that a subset of readers could think that my question is evaded and could lead to another set of readers to think that what you have written to me is a pretext to falsely justify the allowing of anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me as being justified by you on the basis that your selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination that is an abuse of power, is also used by you in relation to your rule to not post vulgar words. This could be determined by you posting a URL of one that you allowed, which you say you will not do because the poster would think that you are throwing a stone at them. But your rule is that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times. And your TOS states that you do enforce your rules so those that receive a sanction have it known to them to follow the rules, and could not think that you are throwing a stone at them. By you writing, [...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...] does not IMHO justify you refusing to delete or sanction anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me here at my request. For even if there are some vulgar words missed by you, the harm that could come to me from anti-Semitism and defamation is not negated by you allowing some vulgar words to pass your scrutiny or even for you to allow them deliberately.
> The case at hand involves your allowing to be seen as civil where it is originally posted, the anti-Semitic statement:
> [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]
> The statement is analogous to:
> [..No Jew will enter heaven...]
> and worse:
> [...Only Christians will enter heaven...].
> As long as you continue to attempt to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statement as to be seen as civil where it is originally posted by not posting your tag line to it to please be civil, a subset of readers could think that could be a contributing factor in the creation and development of antisemitic hate being allowed to be fostered from this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned by you, it is not against your rules and will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking and supportive. Your use of supportive in your TOS also connects The Golden Rule with it. To allow a statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being insulted, is IMHO a perversion of the rule and an insult to humanity itself.
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...choose one for me to consider...] (anti-Semitic or defamatory statements left outstanding)
Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
The poster writes,
[...Convert...save yourself...]
Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 11:57:22
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi -Pil discussion-ancient hatred, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 9:39:55
> > > > you refuse to honor my requests to you to act on my outstanding notifications to you
> > >
> > > > It is not fair because you say that you will act on notifications except for some f mine. That could lead a subset of readers to think that your policy is not fair, for I am treated unequally and denied the protection of your rules.
> > >
> > > Let me rephrase that. I am happy to consider your notifications, one at a time in this thread. Would you like to choose one for me to consider next?
> > >
> > > > fairness in those readers minds could mean equality in the protection offered by your enforcement policy of your rules.
> > >
> > > 1. True, it could. I believe you receive equal protection. (Some posters may believe you receive extra protection, but reasonable people can disagree.)
> > >
> > > 2. Fairness in the minds of other readers could mean equality in appealing to the rules.
> > >
> > > > selective enforcement ... could be deemed discrimination
> > >
> > > True, it could. And it could be deemed the use of judgment.
> > >
> > > > Your claim that you see the balm of support here can be considered by a subset of readers as what is known as a self-serving testimonial that educated readers could see as a transparent attempt to blow your own horn and pat yourself on the back.
> > >
> > > True, it could.
> > >
> > > > The fruits of your use of treating me differently by leaving those notifications of mine outstanding, will be used to judge you as to if or if not this site has a balm of support for the Golden Rule and fairness. For by your fruits shall men know you.
> > >
> > > The fruits I see here are that you are here, and I am here, and we disagree on many things, but we are able to have a civil discussion. By these fruits let others know us.
> > >
> > > > > I don't sanction all vulgar words, either.
> > > >
> > > > A subset of readers could think that is not true. They could have a rational basis to think that because of what is visible in that they could not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand because I do not see any vulgar words being allowed to stand by you.
> > >
> > > How interesting. I see clear vulgarity and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> > >
> > > > I would like for you to justify your posting of this by posting here the URL of the posts that have vulgar words un sanctioned.
> > >
> > > I decline. Those posters could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.
> > >
> > > > I have asked for you to post here what was revised in your FAQ and there is no reply from you.
> > >
> > > Sorry, did I say the FAQ was revised?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > A subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics here. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you make up another question for yourself, that is not the question directed to you, and then answer the made-up question which a subset of readers could think that you satisfied the original question to you. There are readers that see right through that tactic, such as myself. In the case at hand here, you write,[...I see clear *vulgarity* and you do not...].
> > Your reply to me was a response to that I wrote that you sanction vulgar *words* and I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand by you. There could be a few due to human error or negligence by you, but the policy shows that you sanction vulgar words here. I asked for you to post a URL of one that stands unsanctioned by you.
> > The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words. And you write,[... I see clear vulgarity and you do not...]. I do not think that my question is answered by you, for you answered a question that I did not ask to you, (which could be something like is there vulgarity seen in the same manner as years of outstanding notifications from me concerning anti-Semitism and defamation toward me, which I did not ask you) which a subset of readers that understand evasion tactics could see. The Plain Truth is that a subset of readers could think that my question is evaded and could lead to another set of readers to think that what you have written to me is a pretext to falsely justify the allowing of anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me as being justified by you on the basis that your selective enforcement, which could be deemed discrimination that is an abuse of power, is also used by you in relation to your rule to not post vulgar words. This could be determined by you posting a URL of one that you allowed, which you say you will not do because the poster would think that you are throwing a stone at them. But your rule is that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times. And your TOS states that you do enforce your rules so those that receive a sanction have it known to them to follow the rules, and could not think that you are throwing a stone at them. By you writing, [...I don't sanction all vulgar words, either...] does not IMHO justify you refusing to delete or sanction anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements against me here at my request. For even if there are some vulgar words missed by you, the harm that could come to me from anti-Semitism and defamation is not negated by you allowing some vulgar words to pass your scrutiny or even for you to allow them deliberately.
> > The case at hand involves your allowing to be seen as civil where it is originally posted, the anti-Semitic statement:
> > [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]
> > The statement is analogous to:
> > [..No Jew will enter heaven...]
> > and worse:
> > [...Only Christians will enter heaven...].
> > As long as you continue to attempt to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statement as to be seen as civil where it is originally posted by not posting your tag line to it to please be civil, a subset of readers could think that could be a contributing factor in the creation and development of antisemitic hate being allowed to be fostered from this site. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned by you, it is not against your rules and will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking and supportive. Your use of supportive in your TOS also connects The Golden Rule with it. To allow a statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being insulted, is IMHO a perversion of the rule and an insult to humanity itself.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...choose one for me to consider...] (anti-Semitic or defamatory statements left outstanding)
> Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> The poster writes,
> [...Convert...save yourself...]
> Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> Lou Pilder
>
Friends,
Now let us look at the ancient hatred toward the Jews as played out in 1492. Notice that Jews could escape expulsion if they converted.
Lou
To see this, pull up Google and type in:
[ Sephardicstudies.org/decree ]
You will see [ The Edict of expulsion ] as first
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2014, at 0:12:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 12, 2014, at 20:04:25
> Interaction with a clinically licensed professional acting as moderator is not part of the service on facebook.
True, and some people might prefer Babble for that reason.
> My question asks if you consider yourself an exempt service provider under CDA definitions?
I'm not familiar enough with the CDA to have an opinion. Are you?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2014, at 0:40:53
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi -Pil discuss-expulsion edict, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2014, at 11:57:22
> I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
I can see value in that, and have considered it, but unfortunately haven't had the time.
--
> The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words.
True, let me rephrase that:
> > How interesting. I see clearly vulgar words and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
--
> Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> The poster writes,
> [...Convert...save yourself...]
> Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.We discussed this before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
How about a new one?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2014, at 5:50:43
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2014, at 0:40:53
> > I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
>
> I can see value in that, and have considered it, but unfortunately haven't had the time.
>
> --
>
> > The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words.
>
> True, let me rephrase that:
>
> > > How interesting. I see clearly vulgar words and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
>
> --
>
> > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> > The poster writes,
> > [...Convert...save yourself...]
> > Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> > And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
>
> We discussed this before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
>
> How about a new one?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me. This is because there is not a one-person issue here now since a new poster has joined this discussion and the fact that you are leaving statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and statements that defame me unsanctioned where they are originally posted that can cause harm to me and Jews throughout the world. Then there is the fact that a subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics such as just to not answer about what revisions you have made to your FAQ/TOS. You say that you do not have the time to answer. I would think that you do have an obligation to at least list the section of your FAQ that you revised.
But it is much more than that. For I do not think that to allow statements that are anti-Semitic or that defame me to be seen as civil by you where they are originally posted, to be justified by the reasons that you have posted here. And the fact that you could be secretly changing your rules, in that readers have no disclosure as to what your changes have been and why, opens up the aspect of a subset of readers thinking that there could be deceit having the possibility of challenging the health of this community and could lead to the deaths of readers. This is one reason that I need to open up some of these previous posts because of that you are making changes without those changes being disclosed to readers.
Here is one important post that I think readers could use in making their own determination concerning these issues.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1065831.html
Posted by Bryte on August 14, 2014, at 21:48:17
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2014, at 0:12:59
> > Interaction with a clinically licensed professional acting as moderator is not part of the service on facebook.
>
> True, and some people might prefer Babble for that reason.
>If guests were attracted to a group because of promises implicit in the presence of a clinical licensed professional and the relationship proved to be a nuisance because the clinically licensed professional deploys untested techniques that damage the mental tranquility of invitees known to already be at risk, would that comprise an attractive nuisance?
> I'm not familiar enough with the CDA to have an opinion. Are you?
>The only useful question about my opinion would be whether somebody thinks I know enough for my opinion to be useful to anybody.
Do you know enough about your activities here to know whether you need any liability coverage to protect your assets against claims of harm that might arise from your activities?
If someone were harmed, would you want to make them or their surviving family whole? Do you believe no harm could result, or that you could in no way be liable from harm that results from your activities here?
Do you have an opinion about your liabilities here beyond presuming you are exempt from liabilities typically associated with a doctor/patient relationship?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2014, at 7:06:37
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eavhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2014, at 5:50:43
> > > I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
> >
> > I can see value in that, and have considered it, but unfortunately haven't had the time.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words.
> >
> > True, let me rephrase that:
> >
> > > > How interesting. I see clearly vulgar words and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> > > The poster writes,
> > > [...Convert...save yourself...]
> > > Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> > > And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> >
> > We discussed this before:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
> >
> > How about a new one?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me. This is because there is not a one-person issue here now since a new poster has joined this discussion and the fact that you are leaving statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and statements that defame me unsanctioned where they are originally posted that can cause harm to me and Jews throughout the world. Then there is the fact that a subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics such as just to not answer about what revisions you have made to your FAQ/TOS. You say that you do not have the time to answer. I would think that you do have an obligation to at least list the section of your FAQ that you revised.
> But it is much more than that. For I do not think that to allow statements that are anti-Semitic or that defame me to be seen as civil by you where they are originally posted, to be justified by the reasons that you have posted here. And the fact that you could be secretly changing your rules, in that readers have no disclosure as to what your changes have been and why, opens up the aspect of a subset of readers thinking that there could be deceit having the possibility of challenging the health of this community and could lead to the deaths of readers. This is one reason that I need to open up some of these previous posts because of that you are making changes without those changes being disclosed to readers.
> Here is one important post that I think readers could use in making their own determination concerning these issues.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1065831.html
>Mr. Hsung,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The statement in question that says,{Convert-Lou Pilder}, that says {save yourself first}is a statement that is allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted on the basis that you say that unsanctioned statements are not against your rules, and that it will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking and it is supportive by the nature that you say being supportive takes precedence.
But it is much more than that. Here is your reply to me that a subset of readers could think that you are using for a justification to allow the statement to remain unsanctioned. The statement puts down Jews as it could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down in that the statement could be thought by reasonable readers to mean that Judaism is an incomplete religion, inferior to Christianity because the statement implies that Jews are not saved and need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved. Because the statement is allowed to stand, readers could think that you are validating the hate that could be seen by reasonable readers in the statement as the statement stereotypes Jews as people unsaved, and could lead to the stigmatization of Jews as people destined to be left out of The World to Come as the poster does not define what he means by saved, so readers are at liberty to apply their own interpretation of what saved means. And the popular Christiandom interpretation of saved, is being saved from the Wrath of God so that to convert to Christianity could mean by the poster that Jews will not enter heaven unless they convert to Christianity, which is a false statement that defames Judaism making the statement in question defamation toward Jews.
Here is your reply that I will post about as to constitute what IMHHHO could cause harm to Jews and is not in accordance with the mission of your site which is for support including The Golden Rule, which I will show that your reply is not in accordance with what I as a Jew have been revealed as to what the Golden rule entails. To ignore that tragic consequences to Jews in the historical record form them being stereotyped and stigmatized, IMHHHHO is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2014, at 8:20:44
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wrklzdiz, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2014, at 7:06:37
> > > > I would like for you to post your explanation of what the revisions are that you have made.
> > >
> > > I can see value in that, and have considered it, but unfortunately haven't had the time.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > The question directed to you by me concerns vulgar {words} that I would like for you to prove are left unsanctioned by you posting a URL of one, for I do not see years of vulgar words being allowed to stand. Your answer concerns {vulgarity}, which is not the same as vulgar words.
> > >
> > > True, let me rephrase that:
> > >
> > > > > How interesting. I see clearly vulgar words and you do not. In a way, it is the opposite of how you see clear anti-Semitism and I do not.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> > > > The poster writes,
> > > > [...Convert...save yourself...]
> > > > Let us first look at this post that is allowed to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking. After a look at the post, then I will post more concerning your invitation to me that you will consider what to do with this post. I am asking that you post a tag line like other posts here that lead a person to feel that their faith is being put down. If not, It is my contention that by you leaving unsanctioned antsemitism to be seen a civil here, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews to come from this site.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> > > > And let us keep in mind that the rule here is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> > >
> > > We discussed this before:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
> > >
> > > How about a new one?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me. This is because there is not a one-person issue here now since a new poster has joined this discussion and the fact that you are leaving statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and statements that defame me unsanctioned where they are originally posted that can cause harm to me and Jews throughout the world. Then there is the fact that a subset of readers could think that you are using evasion tactics such as just to not answer about what revisions you have made to your FAQ/TOS. You say that you do not have the time to answer. I would think that you do have an obligation to at least list the section of your FAQ that you revised.
> > But it is much more than that. For I do not think that to allow statements that are anti-Semitic or that defame me to be seen as civil by you where they are originally posted, to be justified by the reasons that you have posted here. And the fact that you could be secretly changing your rules, in that readers have no disclosure as to what your changes have been and why, opens up the aspect of a subset of readers thinking that there could be deceit having the possibility of challenging the health of this community and could lead to the deaths of readers. This is one reason that I need to open up some of these previous posts because of that you are making changes without those changes being disclosed to readers.
> > Here is one important post that I think readers could use in making their own determination concerning these issues.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1065831.html
> >
>
> Mr. Hsung,
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. The statement in question that says,{Convert-Lou Pilder}, that says {save yourself first}is a statement that is allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted on the basis that you say that unsanctioned statements are not against your rules, and that it will be good for this community as a whole according to your thinking and it is supportive by the nature that you say being supportive takes precedence.
> But it is much more than that. Here is your reply to me that a subset of readers could think that you are using for a justification to allow the statement to remain unsanctioned. The statement puts down Jews as it could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down in that the statement could be thought by reasonable readers to mean that Judaism is an incomplete religion, inferior to Christianity because the statement implies that Jews are not saved and need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved. Because the statement is allowed to stand, readers could think that you are validating the hate that could be seen by reasonable readers in the statement as the statement stereotypes Jews as people unsaved, and could lead to the stigmatization of Jews as people destined to be left out of The World to Come as the poster does not define what he means by saved, so readers are at liberty to apply their own interpretation of what saved means. And the popular Christiandom interpretation of saved, is being saved from the Wrath of God so that to convert to Christianity could mean by the poster that Jews will not enter heaven unless they convert to Christianity, which is a false statement that defames Judaism making the statement in question defamation toward Jews.
> Here is your reply that I will post about as to constitute what IMHHHO could cause harm to Jews and is not in accordance with the mission of your site which is for support including The Golden Rule, which I will show that your reply is not in accordance with what I as a Jew have been revealed as to what the Golden rule entails. To ignore that tragic consequences to Jews in the historical record form them being stereotyped and stigmatized, IMHHHHO is a reckless disregard for the truth.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.htmlMr. Hsiung.
Looking at your justification for allowing the statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, we see that you did not raise the issue that you think that the statement is civil according to your thinking. You gave one justification for allowing the statement to stand, which is:
[...Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more frequently...].
The tactic of evasion is done by using deceit by making a statement that could be true that is irrelevant and could lead to a false conclusion.
Your statement that readers could think that you are using to justify that the statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down is civil and that you will not sanction the statement because of that, uses a statement that is false and irrelevant. That is your statement that some readers could think that you are making the claim that Christian people can convert to Judaism even more frequently. The truth of the matter could be shown to not substantiate that claim by you because Judaism does not seek converts and it is a rare happening for Christians to convert to Judaism according to statistics concerning that which are published, and records from Jewish sects. In fact, the conversions are usually for purposes of marriage and many Jewish branches do not honor conversions. But the main point is that these conversions are small in number and refute your claim as the record shows, that [...just as, or even more frequently...].
Then there could be a subset of readers to think that deceit can be shown. For your claim to justify the allowing of the defamation toward the Jews here could be thought by them to be irrelevant. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that by throwing up your "justification" for allowing the defamation of the Jews, those readers could think that you are trying to persuade readers that a conclusion can be made to justify your allowing to have the statement to stand on the basis of your claim that is false as there are records of conversions to Judaism and there are few in number in comparison to those that convert to Christianity. And even if your claim was true, as to how many people convert from either religion to the other, that is irrelevant to the fact that the statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down. It would not matter if your claim was true or not. Either way, it does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post what could lead one of another faith to feel put down and to not put them down for having their faith. To say that a Jew has to convert to Christianity to be saved, insults Judaism and is a statement not in accordance with what I have revealed as a Jew to be The Golden Rule.
But what is done by you here is to use the tactic of evasion by using the tactic of making a statement that is irrelevant to lead readers to make a conclusion based on that statement. If we took your claim to mean that the statement is civil if your claim is true, readers could be diverted away from what the statement in question purports and be deceived into thinking that the civility of the statement in question is dependent on your claim being true. There are records to show that your claim is false, but readers could be left with the task of finding that out for themselves. The tragic aspect of all of this is that you say that readers are to trust you, which means that a subset of readers will think that the defamation of the Jews depicted in the statement in question is civil b your thinking, since you post some sort of justification for readers to use for you to not sanction it. Those readers that trust you could follow you in all of the anti-Semitic statements that you are allowing to be seen as civil and all of the defamation to be seen as civil toward me and Jews, and act that out with hatred toward the Jews to inflict harm and even murder to Jews thinking that the will be doing what will be good for the community as a whole as you as a psychiatrist leads them to believe. I don't believe it, for I see a transparent attempt to justify anti-Semitism where no justification is deserved.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 1:12:34
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 14, 2014, at 21:48:17
> If guests were attracted to a group because of promises implicit in the presence of a clinical licensed professional and the relationship proved to be a nuisance because the clinically licensed professional deploys untested techniques that damage the mental tranquility of invitees known to already be at risk, would that comprise an attractive nuisance?
I'm not sure how any nuisance could be attractive.
> Do you know enough about your activities here to know whether you need any liability coverage to protect your assets against claims of harm that might arise from your activities?
>
> If someone were harmed, would you want to make them or their surviving family whole? Do you believe no harm could result, or that you could in no way be liable from harm that results from your activities here?
>
> Do you have an opinion about your liabilities here beyond presuming you are exempt from liabilities typically associated with a doctor/patient relationship?You and Lou do seem to have something in common, worry about harm that might arise from my activities here.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2014, at 9:58:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:22:56
> > D. Some of Lou's notifications that are outstanding pre-date 2013
> > F. Statements that insult Judaism in particular but not limited to, are showing unsanctioned before 2013.
> > G. Statements that defame Lou are showing unsanctioned that were posted before 2013.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that my policy didn't change until 2013. It had been evolving before that, but I may not have made it explicit until then.
>
> --
>
> > A. If you do or do not have a notification from me concerning the statement in question
>
> OK, I looked, and in fact I do.
>
> > B. If you are willing to turn over your archive of notifications to an impartial body for discovery
>
> No.
>
> > C. Why you posted what you did here {except maybe you}, if you would not have sanctioned the statement anyway even if there is the notification from me on the grounds that you state that you will use the discriminatory policy to act on notifications except for some of Lou's.
>
> Sorry, could you repeat your question?
>
> > D. What the good is by you leaving the defamation against me to be seen as civil in the post where it is posted originally, since your thinking is that what you do will be good for this community as a whole, and for readers to trust you at that.
>
> 1. Not sanctioning it could lead to it being seen as civil, but not necessarily.
>
> 2. The good I see is that intervening less = trusting the community, including yourself, more.
>
> > E. Why do you want readers to trust you in what you do in your thinking here if defamation is allowed to be seen as civil where it is originally posted if your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down?
>
> If they trust me, (1) there may be less conflict here and (2) they may be more able to trust others.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. You are allowing defamation against me to be seen as civil by you where it is posted originally. The false statement that I am a disturbed person posted here could cause harm to me. But it is much more than that.
Your reply to me here could lead readers to think that you are justifying your allowing of the defamation toward me to be seen as civil where it is posted originally. To justify hate here is not in accordance with what has been revealed to me as a Jew as part of the Golden Rule that you say you use in your moderation of this site. Nor could it be considered fair by a subset of readers for you to discriminate by sanctioning other statements that could lead one to feel put down or accused and leave the defamation toward me to be seen as civil.
The tactic of evading in the aspect of deceit is when one puts forth a reason to justify something by making a statement that you want others to think is true that is irrelevant and leads to a false conclusion.
Here you put forth that you are justified in leaving the defamation un sanctioned on the basis that you put forth that by doing so there will be less conflict and readers will be more able to trust others. As to if that is true or false does not annul the fact that the harm that could come to me from being defamed falsely as a disturbed person that others could think that you are ratifying the libel on the basis that you say that un repudiated statements means that the statement is not against your rules. To allow any justification for defamation is not in accordance with support for your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down.
If you could do this to me, you could allow defamation to stand against anyone here, justifying in your mind that it will be good for this community as a whole. That is the same argument used to justify slavery, and infanticide, and discrimination and genocide. Time will be the judge of that. But time has already judged how discrimination harms those that are victims of it and how genocide was fostered on the basis that it would be good for the country as a whole. They become stigmatized and devalued and the practice of discrimination is abhorrent to the Golden Rule in what as been revealed to me as a Jew. It can cause depression in vulnerable people, people like those here. And readers led to believe that they can get support here as you state that being supportive takes precedence. They could feel protected by reading your TOS. But your TOS can deceive readers because you fail to disclose that they could be harmed by becoming victims of defamation that you use discrimination as a tool to allow it. And by you saying that you use the Golden Rule and fairness in your moderation, that could lead to members to think that you would abide by your rules and they could take you at your word in that they would not be discriminated against by you and your deputies of record. And that you want readers to trust you, what could happen to them when you use discrimination against them and allow defamation to be posted against them?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2014, at 12:01:09
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-evydece, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2014, at 8:20:44
> > > Here is one that puts down Judaism and leads me to feel that Judaism is being put down.
> > > > Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html> Our discussion before was not complete and now some of our previous discussion needs to be resumed by me.
OK, let's resume that discussion.
> The statement in question ... is a statement that is allowed by you to be seen as civil where it is originally posted on the basis that you say that unsanctioned statements are not against your rules
As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> But it is much more than that. Here is your reply to me
> > IMO that wasn't ... a put-down of Judaism. For one thing, Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more, frequently.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html> The tactic of evasion is done by using deceit by making a statement that could be true that is irrelevant and could lead to a false conclusion.
I agree, statements that could be true, yet could lead to false conclusions, can be a problem. The approach I'm trying now is to allow them -- and also to allow others to post that the statements aren't necessarily true and the conclusions could be false.
> Your statement that readers could think that you are using to justify that the statement that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down is civil and that you will not sanction the statement because of that, uses a statement that is false and irrelevant. That is your statement that some readers could think that you are making the claim that Christian people can convert to Judaism even more frequently. The truth of the matter could be shown to not substantiate that claim by you because Judaism does not seek converts and it is a rare happening for Christians to convert to Judaism according to statistics concerning that which are published, and records from Jewish sects. In fact, the conversions are usually for purposes of marriage and many Jewish branches do not honor conversions. But the main point is that these conversions are small in number and refute your claim
I didn't research it myself. How often in fact do Jewish people convert to Christianity and Christian people convert to Judaism?
> And even if your claim was true, as to how many people convert from either religion to the other, that is irrelevant to the fact that the statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down. It would not matter if your claim was true or not. Either way, it does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post what could lead one of another faith to feel put down and to not put them down for having their faith.
I thought it was relevant to the second part of the post, the claim that Jewish people converted to Christianity all the time.
> To say that a Jew has to convert to Christianity to be saved, insults Judaism and is a statement not in accordance with what I have revealed as a Jew to be The Golden Rule.
> But what is done by you here is to use the tactic of evasion by using the tactic of making a statement that is irrelevant to lead readers to make a conclusion based on that statement.I wouldn't call addressing the second part of the post evasion. I addressed the first part of the post, too:
> > I agree, it wasn't sensitive to your feelings, but that's different from putting down Judaism. And I usually don't consider telling someone what to do once to be pressure/harassment.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060624.htmlAlso, the post didn't say that you, or any Jew, had to convert to Christianity to be saved.
Bob
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.