![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 107. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:07:10
In reply to Which one? » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 14:54:41
Kiddo,
Thank you for joining this discussion. Here in Cincinnati, each year the Klu Klux Klan puts up a white cross on our public square. They say that their jesus condemms all black people, jews, catholics and all other religions to hell. They have a perverted doctrin that Noah was white and thearfor all of his decendants were white and thearfore only white people are "saved". I fought the Klan for years and had to learn about their jesus. The Noah doctrin may be to only some Klan members, for there are numerous off-shoots. I have also run into the White Aryan groups and have found out about their jesus. They worship Hitler. They display the swastika and openly kill jews and blacks. Hitler said that he was doing God's will in his "final solution to the jewish problem. And when anyone raises that ugly head of anti-Semitism, I will try to put it down.
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on May 22, 2002, at 15:07:47
In reply to Thanks , Dinah 1 » Dinah1, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 14:48:18
1. The increase in your posts re: the abuse/addiction, etc. of meds even when prescribed for valid uses such as the illnesses the people on this site suffer from.
2. Your continued "preaching". I cannot for the life of me see what is different re: your posts as they swerve into continuous religious territory and Sal's comments that got him banned, a couple of times I believe. In fact his were less intrusive - they tended to concern an organization, not a belief.
I just wanted you to know I am doing this. Hopefully you will not come back with "It's my right", etc., etc. It's Dr. Bob's decision, obviously, but I don't Think it is your right here.
I truly Believe you are becoming dangerous to the board, dangerous to people whose very lives may depend on the meds that they take. Dangerous to those who are feeling weak and depressed because of their mental illness, and who may seek solace SOLEY in religion, rather than approaching it from all angles, including a Dr.'s opinion.
I would like it if we all, especially myself, would just ignore you, but that doesn't happen. You occasionally post witty and insightful, non-crown threads, and I'm GUESSING that folks hope it's a sign you're getting off your high white horse.
Such is not the case.
- kk
p.s. I mean no disrespect at all to Christians, which is still what I would call Lou based on his "teachings". I would love to have a discussion about religion here, but have finally realized it's not the place, except in the broadest terms, i.e. terms of faith, meditation/prayer, spirituality, or non-spirituality. And even that is tricky.
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 15:16:56
In reply to lou's answer to Kiddo » kiddo, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:07:10
Thanks-
I was just wanting to know what you meant by that....
Kiddo
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:20:04
In reply to Re: A request from Lou to Kid_A. » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 15:02:59
Kiddo,
I asked for a disclaimer for without one the post stands for what it says. Are you saying that anyone on this board could post anything that they want to, including hate , and then just say that they were kidding?
If that were the case, than there would be no end to the hate, the ridicule, the taunting, the jeering, and evrything else that comes from a hatefull mind. I thought that my request was in good faith because it allowed the poster to determine his/her intent. I hope that all the posters here give me the same consideration. I am not asking for any discipline to be taken towards the poster, but only clarification.
Thanks for your interest in this matter,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:22:26
In reply to Re: lou's answer to Kiddo » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 15:16:56
Kiddo,
Furthermore, the jewish community erected a 10 foot tall manorah next to the Klan cross.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:07
In reply to Re: A request from Lou to Kid_A. » kiddo, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:20:04
Lou-
What I'm saying is that this is an online forum-no body language, tone or facial expression to discern what the poster is intending. If you are familiar with a poster, their style, sense of humor, etc., then it's much easier to understand.
I think that anyone can post anything they want according to the FAQ. Since a lot of that is very general in nature, I guess the ball is in Doc Bob's court.
You are welcome on the thanks for my interest in this matter :-)Kiddo
Posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:44
In reply to everybody take a look at the Bad Guy..., posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 14:16:50
> If we want to make a start at fostering an environment on this site for mutual support lets start and remove repeated religiously dogmatic posts from the site entirely. Im sorry to say this Lou, but I'm persoanlly sick and tired of all the Gates, the Horsemen, the Crowns, and whatever logic you construe as your personal twist of saving grace.
------------------------Hi Kid_A,
I don't want to stir this pot further, and I do not want to offend anyone. Therefore, please categorize this post as "informational only".
Due to the fact that the University of Chicago receives federal (US) grant monies, it is illegal to discriminate against public speech on this site solely due to the fact that the speech happens to be religious in nature. In other words, the law does not allow for censorship of religious speech merely because some, or even most, of the public forum participants vote to discriminate against said type of speech.
Having said this, I can also see the other side of the issue. For example, what if someone were to flood this site with a bazillion posts daily that contain religious speech? In this hypothetical case, it would be legal to, for example, limit the number of allowable posts per day of ALL POSTERS, but it would be illegal to selectively censor only those posts that contain religious speech.
Best Wishes.
-- Ron
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:37:34
In reply to Lou - I'm asking Dr. Bob to review two things..., posted by krazy kat on May 22, 2002, at 15:07:47
Krazy Kat,
In my post that you referr to, I stated that there were people that I knew that had overcome their afflictions and...some kept using their drugs untill they got the power to go without them...
At the end of that post, I also made the disclaimer that I was not advocating that people stop their drugs "unless they do so with their doctor".
You see, what I am telling people here is that there is a power that they can get to help them overcome. this isn't something that I read or was told. What I have been telling in the Road actually happenend to me. I was filled with the power of God and I had never read a bible.I know nothing of the new testament for I am jewish. The Rider in the Road is not the world's jesus. But this will become evident when I finish the last 2 Gates. Then a clear picture will emerge.
Lou
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 22, 2002, at 15:39:40
In reply to Re: FYI » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:44
Dr. Bob's rules and regulations have been checked out by several authorities (including Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional lawyer, law professor, and author of at least two books on cyberspace and law). The speech he restricts here--including those posts by your Salvation Army friend--are perfectly legal. Your sign-up at this site is based on your willingness to follow the rules here, University of Chicago funding or not.
Beardy : )>
Posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 15:41:28
In reply to Re: A request from Lou to Kid_A. » kiddo, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 15:20:04
As I said in my previous post I have neither the time, inclination, or desire to preruse the entire context of a site that for all purposes I had no advance warning had any amount of anti semitic remarks contained within... And, given the context of what I post, I do not feel it is within the realm of my responsibility to provide some sort of disclaimer concerning the possible offense that someone may take against some part of content that I neither ENDORSE nor did I WRITE... And where did you get the notion, from what context of my post did you infer that I DID endorse said content???I am not posting what I feel may be possibly OFFESNSIVE material, by and large the site is just an amalgamation of crackpot conspiracy and idiocy, and I found it humorous in that context... I DO NOT, TO SATISFY YOUR INQUIRY find antisemitism the least bit amusing, and I find your acusation to defend my innocense unjust and insulting...
to quote you "I asked for a disclaimer for without one the post stands for what it says."
yes it does, it stands for the fact that there is a lone and disturbed individual in this world with too much time on his hands, fanatical ideas not just inclusive of anti-semitism, with unfortunate access to a html editor... thats about it Lou.
Posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:57:54
In reply to Ron: that's not quite true. » Ron Hill, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 22, 2002, at 15:39:40
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 16:08:46
In reply to Re: FYI » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:44
Posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 16:33:16
In reply to Are you an Attorney? (nm) » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 16:08:46
Kiddo,
Funny you should ask since about five minutes ago I was lamenting the fact that I failed to include a disclaimer at the end of my prior post.
I am not an attorney. The information in my prior post was communicated to me by an attorney. He has argued numerous cases before the US Supreme Court and has won a couple of important landmark cases. Therefore, he should know what he is talking about.
-- Ron
Posted by fi on May 22, 2002, at 16:34:15
In reply to Re: FYI » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 15:33:44
2 points:
1. Ron: these Boards are *not* publically funded. Dr Bob has made it clear that he pays from his personal money for the server space, and all the work on the boards is done in his own time. So no U of Chicago funding is used. And the civility policy is explicit. So can you please consider that really carefully before bringing this up again? If you feel that any sort of civility policy is a breach of free speech in general and want to discuss that, fine(tho any of us may choose to disagree). But the legal perspective does not appear to fit the facts.
2. We dont have to read Lou's posts, and get drawn into these debates. Of course, we can choose to read them. But I havent regretted stopping reading these threads, personally. It does concern me that they may put off people new to the board, or 'lurking'.
Sorry- this sounds stroppier than I meant it to. I would just like things to calm down a little, and also dont want people to be bogged down when its avoidable.
I dont need a reply from either of you, tho of course you may want to post in response. Lou: please dont take the time to reply to this post with a post for me, as I wont be reading any more posts in this thread.
Fi
> > If we want to make a start at fostering an environment on this site for mutual support lets start and remove repeated religiously dogmatic posts from the site entirely. Im sorry to say this Lou, but I'm persoanlly sick and tired of all the Gates, the Horsemen, the Crowns, and whatever logic you construe as your personal twist of saving grace.
> ------------------------
>
> Hi Kid_A,
>
> I don't want to stir this pot further, and I do not want to offend anyone. Therefore, please categorize this post as "informational only".
>
> Due to the fact that the University of Chicago receives federal (US) grant monies, it is illegal to discriminate against public speech on this site solely due to the fact that the speech happens to be religious in nature. In other words, the law does not allow for censorship of religious speech merely because some, or even most, of the public forum participants vote to discriminate against said type of speech.
>
> Having said this, I can also see the other side of the issue. For example, what if someone were to flood this site with a bazillion posts daily that contain religious speech? In this hypothetical case, it would be legal to, for example, limit the number of allowable posts per day of ALL POSTERS, but it would be illegal to selectively censor only those posts that contain religious speech.
>
> Best Wishes.
>
> -- Ron
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 16:37:00
In reply to Re: Are you an Attorney? » kiddo, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 16:33:16
Yes, in theory...does he have a name, perhaps? I don't understand how attornies can view and come out with two completely different answers.
Kiddo
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 16:39:53
In reply to Ron: *not* funded/all: coping with Lou's threads, posted by fi on May 22, 2002, at 16:34:15
Posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 16:50:06
In reply to Re: Are you an Attorney?, posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 16:37:00
> Yes, in theory...does he have a name, perhaps?
----------------------Kiddo,
Yes, he has a name, of course, but I do not have his permission to post that information.
-- Ron
Posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 17:13:01
In reply to Re: Are you an Attorney? » kiddo, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 16:50:06
***WARNING*** It is my duty to warn you that if you are in any way disturbed by bunnies, bracketed nonsensical pseudo-english meant to be taken as the thought process of said bunny, inane public journal sites, or human beings that may spend more social time with their bunnies then with any human being on this planet, I URGE YOU PLEASE do NOT click on the following link.This warning has been a paid announcement of The Promise Keepers, uh no, the Primitive Baptists, errrhhmm, Cao Daists... thats not right, SATAN HIMSELF... that oughta do it.
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on May 22, 2002, at 18:18:48
In reply to Kid A comes Clean. A -completely- unoffensive site, posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 17:13:01
(\/)
(*;*)
(")(")_ tasty pancakebunny..I'm in lust..
Posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 18:59:18
In reply to Ron: *not* funded/all: coping with Lou's threads, posted by fi on May 22, 2002, at 16:34:15
>So no U of Chicago funding is used. And the civility policy is explicit. So can you please consider that really carefully before bringing this up again?
-------------------Fi,
Why the abrasive tone of voice?
I don't want to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion on this topic. We can leave that for the attorneys. However, I will respond briefly to your comment.
The U of C is subject to federal anti-discrimination laws because it receives federal grant monies. Yes, I know it is a private institution, but if you go to the U of C web site, accounting records are available. In those accounting records you will note that U of C accepts federal grant monies. Pbabble is associated with the U of C at a number of connection points, one of which is the routing of donation funds through a U of C account. Much more could be said about other connections but, in the interest of time, I'll leave it at that.
I was not trying to be mean to anyone in any way. I was merely pointing out to Kid_A that his/her suggestion to "remove repeated religiously dogmatic posts from the site entirely" would likely be a violation of federal law if implemented.
-- Ron
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 22, 2002, at 19:35:57
In reply to Re: Pbabble Connections with U of C È fi, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 18:59:18
But the very fact that you have asked lawyers to look into this subject is a curiosity to us all, I believe. If I remember correctly, you began this quest when someone was asked not to post slogans of any kind (religious ones are not the only ones excluded; you can't say "Eat at Joe's" at the bottom of each post, either), as he had done in almost every post. You followed it with a note on PBA, which sounded, to me (I'm not accusing) like you were threatening to call a lawyer because you felt someone's rights were being trampled on.
I asked you once why you were doing it, but you did not answer, so I will not ask again. But my course uses a book on the subject of internet law, so I asked the author about the specific posts in question. He said he found nothing in the rules that broke any laws or that was unconstitutional. Dr. Bob, however, has already looked into it prior to building this site, and this person is one of the folks quoted.
I have no doubt he knows what he's doing, but I don't understand the desire to bring legal action against someone who has created such a nice place for you to sell your product (hahaha) and make friends like me. That baffles my mind.
beardy : )>
Posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 19:37:54
In reply to Re: Pbabble Connections with U of C » fi, posted by Ron Hill on May 22, 2002, at 18:59:18
To quote, Dr. Bob's intention of this board, "This is a message board for mutual support and education. It focuses on non-medication-related issues (including "just" being social)."I supose that if I wanted to fill the board and every post related or not with comments about my 1990 Jetta GLI 16 Valve automobile then by God Damn, I should be able to do so by protection of my ?First? ammendment rights...
If you want to discuss Theology, then go to a board whose topic revolves around that, I for one don't need to be fed religious dogma as an answer to my psychological problems.
What federal law are you refering to? I highly doubt that that the UNIV of Chicago who may in some strained relation may be responsible for the existance of this board would feel that posts that are destructive to the overall usefullness of this forum deserve their place amoungst all the other contributory and relative posts. Remember that a number of Dr. Bob's persoanl research and study involves the active observation of this community, and when that community falls apart due to off topic and disruptive posts, that serves him no good whatsoever...
More than one person, including Dr. Bob, has expressed their concerns regarding "pressuring", and now, this conduct has gotten worse, reeling into the advice of the glory of giving up medication alltogether, medication which for many people makes it possible to live somewhat bareable lives...
These posts are irresponsible, offtopic, and destructive to other users ability to seek and achieve support from this board, and that is now hopefully fostering into a commonly held opinion...
I care not for your fey references to the vagueness of law... This is my board in as much as I have made it my safeharbor and outlet, as well as the many other contributive poster's board, and I thank those who have contributed in meaningfull and productive ways. I will not watch it become a soapbox for someone's own personal religious agenda.
There is a time and place for religious discussion, even on this board, but I think that boundry has been crossed.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 20:12:38
In reply to FRUSTRATED FRUSTRATED FRUSTRATED » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 22, 2002, at 19:37:54
Friends,
When I was 7 years old, I was in downtown Cincinati with my father. We were standng in front of Woolworth's dept. store. There were people beng beaten by police and jeered by white people because they wanted to eat at the lunch counter there. I asked my father to explain this injustice to me. He said, "Lou, the owners of the store do not want black people to eat at the lunch counter because the white people do not want them to allow black people at the counter. The owners say tht they own the store and therfore they can kick out the black people because the white people do not want them there."
Even as a small child, I felt the lash of descrimination along with those corageous black people that wanted equality. I remember the manager comming out and yelling, "this store is for whites, you (expletive) go to another resturant that serves blacks." "We have rights", yelled out the black people.
Just as they chanted that, the police rained in blows with clubs and arrested them. The polce were all white people.
It took years of litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that owners of any establishment could not bar anyone for wanting equal rights. Segregation was over in 1954.
There are still some exemptions to the law. Some Country clubs will not allow Tiger Woods to play there because of his skin color. I do not know of any other exemptions.
Now I will never forget those absolutly blessed people that stood up to Woolworth's dept. store on tht steamy hot day in Cincinnati when I was a child. They were an inspiration to me, and they showed me that all men are created equal, and they showed me that we could all overcome and they showed me that there is a God in Heaven that will lift up the people that are cast down and give them the Crown of Life.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 20:19:12
In reply to The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life, posted by Lou Pilder on May 20, 2002, at 16:33:37
Why not ask Dr. Bob to create a religious/theology site, and that should make Lou and all of the 'attorneys' happy....then all of the posts could go there or be deleted....
Kiddo
Posted by kiddo on May 22, 2002, at 20:21:58
In reply to Lou responds (partial) » kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 20:12:38
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.