Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1068180

Shown: posts 39 to 63 of 66. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's response-tupstan?

Posted by Partlycloudy on July 20, 2014, at 18:38:21

In reply to Lou's response-tupstan? Partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2014, at 17:19:17

Lou, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I have no problems with the images or links that Dr Bob provided. I won't, therefore, participate in any part of this thread that is pursuing that avenue. That is your business, not mine.

I hope you respect my request to be left out of these discussions, as they are of no concern, personally, to me.

Thanks!
PC

 

Re: Why

Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2014, at 20:39:53

In reply to Re: Lou's response-tupstan?, posted by Partlycloudy on July 20, 2014, at 18:38:21

Why would I ignore something that isn't allowed to be displayed lets say on the inside of a restaurant? I do feel My appetite which isn't good to begin with would be severely impaired with a picture of a P*nis Tree on the Wall, or the lady holding the two headed P*nis. How will this help me to understand art. As personally I don't consider this art. Seeing the picture of the Swastika reminds me of the owners of a diner in the City I'm from that survived a concentration camp. I will never forget the tattoo number on both the wife and husband's arm. Also brings back to me the Movie Sophies Choice. A Choice that no human being should ever have to make. Do I keep my Son or Daughter and sacrifice the other. So many ran out of the Theater in tears. I will never for get this. So if one is of the Jewish Faith and a family member was killed in a concentration camp. It could very rationally cause severe emotional damage to them. How horrible it all was. Phillipa

 

Re: why I posted those links

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2014, at 1:13:07

In reply to Re: why I posted those links Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on July 18, 2014, at 9:53:39

> Did you screen the pictures before posting the link.

No, I was focused on that one picture.

> I personally think it was okay if you had posted a name of the artist and let PC explore.

I agree, that would've been fine, and maybe even better. Sorry I upset you.

Bob

 

Re: Is you had

Posted by Phillipa on July 21, 2014, at 9:47:31

In reply to Re: why I posted those links, posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2014, at 1:13:07

Dr Bob if you had previewed that link of pictures before posting would you have still posted them? Thanks for answering this question as I understand you are sorry but I personally would review anything I were to post before posting. Thanks Phillipa

 

Re: Is you had

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 3:00:17

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Phillipa on July 21, 2014, at 9:47:31

> Dr Bob if you had previewed that link of pictures before posting would you have still posted them?

Probably not.

Bob

 

Re: Is you had Dr. Bob

Posted by Phillipa on July 22, 2014, at 20:47:47

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 3:00:17

Are all the pictures from the same artist. I did not stay on this link long enough to read it. If not. Wouldn't it be better to just post a link to the artist the question was about. As that picture didn't resemble most of the other in the link. Phillipa

 

Re: Is you had

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 23:37:57

In reply to Re: Is you had Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on July 22, 2014, at 20:47:47

> Are all the pictures from the same artist. I did not stay on this link long enough to read it. If not. Wouldn't it be better to just post a link to the artist the question was about.

I think so, I didn't read it all. Yes, posting just the name of the artist might have been better.

Bob

 

Re: Is you had Dr. Bob

Posted by Phillipa on July 23, 2014, at 9:39:19

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 23:37:57

Why not just delete the link and post the artists name. Such a long time this has continued time to end the discussion isn't it and move on. I know you will do the proper thing thanks Phillipa

 

Re: Is you had

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 0:53:40

In reply to Re: Is you had Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on July 23, 2014, at 9:39:19

> Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.

My policy is not to delete posts.

Bob

 

Lou's response-gudphoar Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2014, at 11:01:50

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 0:53:40

> > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
>
> My policy is not to delete posts.
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote, [...My policy is not to delete posts...].
Phillipa did not ask you to delete your post displaying the swastika and nudity. What she was asking for is for you to delete the link in the post with the picture of the swastika and the nudity. The difference is important to this discussion. Reasonable readers could think that what you are doing is to evade Phillipa's request to you. There is a rational basis for that thinking because you have changed what she said to you and that the past practice has been for you to delete links to anti-Semitic content and other offending content by using "xxxx" to replace a link.
I have the following concerns and if you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. Phillipa deserves the respect of others here so that I will apologize to her for not answering her request to me by saying that I thought she said what she did not.
B. Phillipa's request to me has merit and I will follow my past practice and replace the URL of the link with "xxxx"
C. Lou, you are trying to protect Phillip's mental-health and the mission of the forum is for support of that. But it will be good for me and this community as a whole in my thinking, to not delete the link, so that replaces what could be a sound mental-health action by me here to delete the link.
Fill in if you are taking the position that you will not replace the link with "xxxx" and will be good for you and/or this community as a whole according to your thinking to leave it to stand:
D. Lou, the reason that it will be good for me and this community as a whole for me to leave the link to allow the swastika to be seen and the nudity, is because_______________________________
Lou Pilder

 

Real penis trees!

Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 25, 2014, at 20:22:35

In reply to Re: Is you had Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on July 23, 2014, at 9:39:19

http://elitedaily.com/humor/hilarious-tree/

 

Re: Real penis trees! sleepygirl2

Posted by Partlycloudy on July 26, 2014, at 10:16:25

In reply to Real penis trees!, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 25, 2014, at 20:22:35

OMG, truly hilarious and they are what they say they are.
Well done.
pc

 

Re: Real penis trees! Partlycloudy

Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 26, 2014, at 22:25:50

In reply to Re: Real penis trees! sleepygirl2, posted by Partlycloudy on July 26, 2014, at 10:16:25

Thank you :-)
My reign of horror is now complete!!
Mwah, ha ha!

 

Re: Real penis trees! sleepygirl2

Posted by Phillipa on July 30, 2014, at 9:46:31

In reply to Re: Real penis trees! Partlycloudy, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 26, 2014, at 22:25:50

I shared it on facebook. It was a good one. No horror in that Mother Nature sure creates some interesting stuff. Phillipa

 

Re: And the picture is... Dr. Bob

Posted by happyflower123 on November 15, 2014, at 13:25:09

In reply to Re: And the picture is..., posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2014, at 1:05:07

JUST A FYI Don't know if you are aware of artist's copy-rite laws, but here is a link with that information. You have to have permission from an artist to use their work in any way on your site. If you right clicked and saved their work, manipulated the image and redistributed it on your site without permission, it may be against the law. http://emptyeasel.com/2011/01/11/how-to-fight-online-copyright-infringement/

> See:
>
> http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/1911649
> http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/sigmar-polke
>
> Bob

 

Lou's request-swa Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2015, at 14:38:33

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2014, at 23:37:57

> > Are all the pictures from the same artist. I did not stay on this link long enough to read it. If not. Wouldn't it be better to just post a link to the artist the question was about.
>
> I think so, I didn't read it all. Yes, posting just the name of the artist might have been better.
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you attend to my concern here about that you have posted a link depicting the swastika. You say that you will not delete the post, but you also say that you take responsibility for what you post here.
Then for you saying that, I am requesting that you open the post and type right in the text something like:
Operator's note:
I was the one that posted the link with the swastika. It is my policy that anything in a link is directly to the text and is not immune to sanction as it could be considered to be quoting someone else which is against my policy. The swastika posted could be a hate crime as defined by the Obama administration if posted on , let's say, a Jewish person's door, like burning a cross on a black person's lawn. I know that the swastika could not be sensitive to the feelings of some others and I want you to believe me when I say that if I had proofed the link, I would have done something different. I want you to know that I do not endorse what the Swastika could stand for.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's request-miehnvision

Posted by Lou Pilder on June 10, 2015, at 16:13:41

In reply to Lou's request-swa Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2015, at 14:38:33

> > > Are all the pictures from the same artist. I did not stay on this link long enough to read it. If not. Wouldn't it be better to just post a link to the artist the question was about.
> >
> > I think so, I didn't read it all. Yes, posting just the name of the artist might have been better.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting that you attend to my concern here about that you have posted a link depicting the swastika. You say that you will not delete the post, but you also say that you take responsibility for what you post here.
> Then for you saying that, I am requesting that you open the post and type right in the text something like:
> Operator's note:
> I was the one that posted the link with the swastika. It is my policy that anything in a link is directly to the text and is not immune to sanction as it could be considered to be quoting someone else which is against my policy. The swastika posted could be a hate crime as defined by the Obama administration if posted on , let's say, a Jewish person's door, like burning a cross on a black person's lawn. I know that the swastika could not be sensitive to the feelings of some others and I want you to believe me when I say that if I had proofed the link, I would have done something different. I want you to know that I do not endorse what the Swastika could stand for.
> "Dr. Bob"
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
As long as you allow the swastika to be presented here as being posted by you, there could be more people that could be led to believe that you and any deputy of record are validating the hate that it represents to Jews. And time after time, I have given you the time to post what could mean that you reject what the swastika stands for. So I have another request. Not like the one that you have not responded to here above, but a new request. I would like for you to post something like this:
Operator's note:
Be advised that I do what in my thinking will be good for this community as a whole. And I have a vision that in the future, a picture of the swastika will be put on each board where I put my pictures, for it will be good for me and the community as a whole for me to do so because I vision a community where Jews are repulsed and not welcome.
And if anyone does not like that, they can go elsewhere where Jews are respected and the swastika would be deleted if posted by the owner/operator.
"Dr.Bob"
Lou Pilder

 

Re: Lou's request-miehnvision

Posted by Lamdage22 on June 14, 2015, at 8:15:39

In reply to Lou's request-miehnvision, posted by Lou Pilder on June 10, 2015, at 16:13:41

swastika is illegal to display in germany

 

Lous response-why will the swastka be gooder Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 16:37:14

In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 0:53:40

> > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
>
> My policy is not to delete posts.
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...My policy is not to delete posts...].
But you do delete posts. This brings up what criteria that you use to delete the posts that you have deleted. Your overriding criteria in your TOS is that whatever you do or do not do is because it will be good in your vision in the future for the community as a whole. And you want readers to trust you at that.
I find that you then could discriminate in which posts you delete, all the time in your mind justifying that by saying that in the future what you did will make the community gooder. But what if the deletion or the refusal to delete causes harm to someone? Would that not be a gooder criteria to use than to use your vision that by deleting or not deleting a gooder community will result? Your posting of the swastika here is in question. You refuse to delete it but you do delete other posts. The harm that could come to Jews by readers seeing that you will not delete the swastika could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and Jews could be harmed. You do not use that as a criteria to delete? But you will use the criteria od leaving the swastika because you have some vision that by you doing that the community will be gooder? How would anyone make a determination if by you posting the swastika the community will be gooder? Is that not an arbitrary decision to make, or even capricious or a discriminatory one? If not, then you have some type of justification for it? If so, what is that?
Lou Pilder

 

Lous response-why the swastka-anti-Semitic policy

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:08:40

In reply to Lous response-why will the swastka be gooder Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 16:37:14

> > > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
> >
> > My policy is not to delete posts.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...My policy is not to delete posts...].
> But you do delete posts. This brings up what criteria that you use to delete the posts that you have deleted. Your overriding criteria in your TOS is that whatever you do or do not do is because it will be good in your vision in the future for the community as a whole. And you want readers to trust you at that.
> I find that you then could discriminate in which posts you delete, all the time in your mind justifying that by saying that in the future what you did will make the community gooder. But what if the deletion or the refusal to delete causes harm to someone? Would that not be a gooder criteria to use than to use your vision that by deleting or not deleting a gooder community will result? Your posting of the swastika here is in question. You refuse to delete it but you do delete other posts. The harm that could come to Jews by readers seeing that you will not delete the swastika could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and Jews could be harmed. You do not use that as a criteria to delete? But you will use the criteria od leaving the swastika because you have some vision that by you doing that the community will be gooder? How would anyone make a determination if by you posting the swastika the community will be gooder? Is that not an arbitrary decision to make, or even capricious or a discriminatory one? If not, then you have some type of justification for it? If so, what is that?
> Lou Pilder

Friends,
Be not deceived. Mr. Hsiung says that he has a policy that he does not delete posts. But he does delete posts.
What this means is that Jews could be harmed by seeing that Mr. Hsiung refuses to delete the swastika that he posted. They could think that it will be gooder here to do so and think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the hate by refusing to delete the swastika because it then could be seen as being supportive where it is original posted.
His policy is against the Jew, for he will delete posts of other natures that could cause harm. By his self-made policy that he thinks allows him to leave anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by him because if he deleted it, it would be against his policy, is simply not true for he does delete posts.
Here is one post that speaks to this out of many that shows that his policy, using that if something is against the Jew it is anti-Semitic, to be anti-Semitic because it is against the Jew as he leaves the swastika un repudiated where it is original posted so readers could think that it will be good for his community as a whole so he thinks. This turns my stomach.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030113/msgs/135632.html

 

Lou's response-why the swastka-let us reason

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:26:28

In reply to Lous response-why the swastka-anti-Semitic policy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:08:40

> > > > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
> > >
> > > My policy is not to delete posts.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...My policy is not to delete posts...].
> > But you do delete posts. This brings up what criteria that you use to delete the posts that you have deleted. Your overriding criteria in your TOS is that whatever you do or do not do is because it will be good in your vision in the future for the community as a whole. And you want readers to trust you at that.
> > I find that you then could discriminate in which posts you delete, all the time in your mind justifying that by saying that in the future what you did will make the community gooder. But what if the deletion or the refusal to delete causes harm to someone? Would that not be a gooder criteria to use than to use your vision that by deleting or not deleting a gooder community will result? Your posting of the swastika here is in question. You refuse to delete it but you do delete other posts. The harm that could come to Jews by readers seeing that you will not delete the swastika could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and Jews could be harmed. You do not use that as a criteria to delete? But you will use the criteria od leaving the swastika because you have some vision that by you doing that the community will be gooder? How would anyone make a determination if by you posting the swastika the community will be gooder? Is that not an arbitrary decision to make, or even capricious or a discriminatory one? If not, then you have some type of justification for it? If so, what is that?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Friends,
> Be not deceived. Mr. Hsiung says that he has a policy that he does not delete posts. But he does delete posts.
> What this means is that Jews could be harmed by seeing that Mr. Hsiung refuses to delete the swastika that he posted. They could think that it will be gooder here to do so and think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the hate by refusing to delete the swastika because it then could be seen as being supportive where it is original posted.
> His policy is against the Jew, for he will delete posts of other natures that could cause harm. By his self-made policy that he thinks allows him to leave anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by him because if he deleted it, it would be against his policy, is simply not true for he does delete posts.
> Here is one post that speaks to this out of many that shows that his policy, using that if something is against the Jew it is anti-Semitic, to be anti-Semitic because it is against the Jew as he leaves the swastika un repudiated where it is original posted so readers could think that it will be good for his community as a whole so he thinks. This turns my stomach.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030113/msgs/135632.html

Friends,
Let us reason together. Who has believed my report? Is it not clear to you what is plainly visible?
Now Mr. Hsiung says that he will not delete the swastika that he posted. He claims that he does not delete posts as his policy. You have seen just a couple of examples to show that there are deletions by him. That is even worser now. Because now that you see what is plainly visible, for Mr. Hsiung to have it both ways, he would have to present some type of reasoning to justify him saying that he does not delete the swastika that he posted because he has a policy that he does not delete, but he does delete. In:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
we have another aspect of this. Let us think about that awhile....
Lou

 

Lou's response-why the swastika-let us reason

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:42:15

In reply to Lou's response-why the swastka-let us reason, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:26:28

> > > > > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
> > > >
> > > > My policy is not to delete posts.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You wrote,[...My policy is not to delete posts...].
> > > But you do delete posts. This brings up what criteria that you use to delete the posts that you have deleted. Your overriding criteria in your TOS is that whatever you do or do not do is because it will be good in your vision in the future for the community as a whole. And you want readers to trust you at that.
> > > I find that you then could discriminate in which posts you delete, all the time in your mind justifying that by saying that in the future what you did will make the community gooder. But what if the deletion or the refusal to delete causes harm to someone? Would that not be a gooder criteria to use than to use your vision that by deleting or not deleting a gooder community will result? Your posting of the swastika here is in question. You refuse to delete it but you do delete other posts. The harm that could come to Jews by readers seeing that you will not delete the swastika could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and Jews could be harmed. You do not use that as a criteria to delete? But you will use the criteria od leaving the swastika because you have some vision that by you doing that the community will be gooder? How would anyone make a determination if by you posting the swastika the community will be gooder? Is that not an arbitrary decision to make, or even capricious or a discriminatory one? If not, then you have some type of justification for it? If so, what is that?
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Friends,
> > Be not deceived. Mr. Hsiung says that he has a policy that he does not delete posts. But he does delete posts.
> > What this means is that Jews could be harmed by seeing that Mr. Hsiung refuses to delete the swastika that he posted. They could think that it will be gooder here to do so and think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the hate by refusing to delete the swastika because it then could be seen as being supportive where it is original posted.
> > His policy is against the Jew, for he will delete posts of other natures that could cause harm. By his self-made policy that he thinks allows him to leave anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by him because if he deleted it, it would be against his policy, is simply not true for he does delete posts.
> > Here is one post that speaks to this out of many that shows that his policy, using that if something is against the Jew it is anti-Semitic, to be anti-Semitic because it is against the Jew as he leaves the swastika un repudiated where it is original posted so readers could think that it will be good for his community as a whole so he thinks. This turns my stomach.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030113/msgs/135632.html
>
> Friends,
> Let us reason together. Who has believed my report? Is it not clear to you what is plainly visible?
> Now Mr. Hsiung says that he will not delete the swastika that he posted. He claims that he does not delete posts as his policy. You have seen just a couple of examples to show that there are deletions by him. That is even worser now. Because now that you see what is plainly visible, for Mr. Hsiung to have it both ways, he would have to present some type of reasoning to justify him saying that he does not delete the swastika that he posted because he has a policy that he does not delete, but he does delete. In:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
> we have another aspect of this. Let us think about that awhile....
> Lou

Friends,
Be not deceived. For what you read here could cost you your life. In particular, to be misled to believe what Mr. Hsiung wants you to believe. Now he wants you to believe that he will not delete the swastika that he posted because he has a policy not to delete posts.
Let us look at this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/4018.html
And the beat goes on. For his TOS states that deputies can delete posts. So is the "policy" a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitic hate to be seen as being supportive where it is originally posted where no justification is deserved as in the swastika posted by Mr. Hsiung?
Lou

 

Lou's response-swasika illegal to display Lamdage22

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:48:26

In reply to Re: Lou's request-miehnvision, posted by Lamdage22 on June 14, 2015, at 8:15:39

> swastika is illegal to display in germany

L,
Also in Belgium?
Lou

 

Lou's apology-

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:58:47

In reply to Lou's response-swasika illegal to display Lamdage22, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:48:26

Friends,
There is a prohibition to me by Mr. Hsiung to not post more than 3 consecutive posts. I sometimes forget to count and sometimes make mistakes so I apologize.
Now if anyone is harmed by seeing my name 4 times in a row, please let me know how that could harm you, for I do not see that harm could come to anyone by seeing my name 4 times in a row without going to respond to another poster in between. I would really like to know this for my overriding reason to post here is to save lives and to stop Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as being supportive where those posts are posted originally. Lou

 

Re: Lou's apology- Lou Pilder

Posted by Phillipa on December 18, 2015, at 19:32:54

In reply to Lou's apology-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 17:58:47

He has no deputies and hasn't for years. My Mother's Father was a German soldier in WWI. Died of pneumonia as there were no antibiotics. So he died because meds were not available to him. She lost her Father at age two. P


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.