Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1067704

Shown: posts 24 to 48 of 48. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's reply-opper SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42

In reply to Re: Lou's request-duyu Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 9:15:38

> I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-opper Lou Pilder

Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 12:05:45

In reply to Lou's reply-opper SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42

> Scott,
> You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
> Lou

Perhaps what it is saying is that I have no particular reason to believe in your good faith in requesting the information. After all, it seemed doubtful that you have forgotten so many of your posts made within the last month, when you seem to remember posts made years and years ago.

And whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott.

 

Re: Lou's request-ehubuz

Posted by Beckett on July 3, 2014, at 14:12:55

In reply to Lou's request-ehubuz Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:48:54

> wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> True or False:
> A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> F. more of your choice
> Lou
>

I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.

However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.

There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
.
This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.

 

Re: Lou's reply-opper Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42

In reply to Lou's reply-opper SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2014, at 9:58:42

> > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].

> I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism

Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?


- Scott

 

Read this thread

Posted by 10derheart on July 3, 2014, at 18:50:38

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42

...if you want your head to explode.

(hello, Scott)

 

Re: I just have to take it

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2014, at 19:32:58

In reply to Re: I just have to take it Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 9:18:47

> > Being at Babble makes Dinah stronger.
>
> That is quite an assumption to make. Do you have any evidence to back you up?

I don't have any evidence. It's just a hypothesis.

> Do you know that when I have been at Babble lately, my thinking becomes so disorganized from stress that I find work difficult for days at a time? Do you think it makes me stronger to have to take anti-psychotics to calm me down enough to function after reading Babble?
>
> It's fine for you to say that I should learn not to get so upset. If I feel part of this community, if I even *take* part in this community, I get upset. My only shot at not being harmed by this community as it is currently run by you is to stay away. I can't afford to have my work suffer. I can't allow my family to ask me on and off all day what's wrong? Am I ok?

I'm glad you're able to work, and to function, even if it's difficult, and requires medication, and your family worries about you. But maybe I have lower standards.

I didn't mean to say you should learn not to get so upset. Getting upset is part of life. What I'd like is if you would continue to be part of this community despite me and my policies getting you upset from time to time.

Bob

 

Lou's reply-Europhash Dinah

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 9:44:38

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2014, at 12:05:45

> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism so that in dialog, the facts could be known. If she rejects that opportunity, then that could speak for itself.
> > Lou
>
> Perhaps what it is saying is that I have no particular reason to believe in your good faith in requesting the information. After all, it seemed doubtful that you have forgotten so many of your posts made within the last month, when you seem to remember posts made years and years ago.
>
> And whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott.

D,
You wrote,[...whatever microscopic doubt I may have had has been shattered by your reply to Scott...]
I am unsure as to what you would want readers to believe by what you wrote about me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What in my reply to Scott shattered, and what was shattered?
B. What could be one post that I have made recently that you say that I could have forgotten and could be relevant to this discussion?
C. What is the significance, if anything, of that you have no particular reason to believe in my good faith in requesting the information?
D. True or False:
D1. If I was to post a link here, Lou, to a post that I think that you are accusing me of fostering anti-Semitism, then you could have the opportunity to post your side of that claim by me, Lou
D2. Anti-Semitism can be fostered in this community when the leaders and their deputies all allow statements that could lead a Jewish reader to feel that their faith is being put down by the statement.
D3. I did have the option of sanctioning the posts in question, Lou, but I chose not to do so and all the other deputies of record had a discussion with me and we all agreed to allow those anti-Semitic statements to stand.
D4. I will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements here that do not have a tag-line to please be civil where they are originally posted because I agree that they should be allowed to stand so that readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive here and that the tragic consequences that could happen to Jews by that hatred toward the Jews could be seen as being good for this community as a whole because those readers could know the TOS here where Mr. Hsiung says that people are to try to trust him at what he does because he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole, trumps his own rules not to post anything that could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down
Lou

 

Lou's response to Beckett's post-getbak

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 13:04:21

In reply to Re: Lou's request-ehubuz, posted by Beckett on July 3, 2014, at 14:12:55

> > wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> > If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> > True or False:
> > A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> > B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> > C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> > D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> > E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> > F. more of your choice
> > Lou
> >
>
> I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
>
> However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
>
> There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
> .
> This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.

Friends,
It is written above. And what is written could influence you to be hostile to me on the basis that there are the satems concerning my character as:
A.[...a target of accusations...] (that I can be seen as the subject person targeting)
B.[...targeting Dinah could go against some of my tenants (which could be thought to be Judaism
C.[ could not a down regulation of {conflict}..as pope *suffer*...]
D.[..your threads have a strong influence (the departure of posters)...]
E.[...Back off Dinah...].
Friends, the overriding aspect of the post here is that it carries a message to a subset of readers that I object to. The message is nothing new, but an old message, entrenched in the dogma of European fascism that some readers could know here starting with the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau where modern fascism starting in 1922 took hold of European political thought.
Many of you already know the horrors that came from that type of thinking as it had it's core in what the fascists called {the common good}. That is analogous to:
[..doing what will be good for the community as a whole...]. You see, in that type of thinking, what is right or wrong is put aside and what will be good for the country trumps all morality, all laws, and a subset of people could think that the concept of the common good to be the deciding factor as to what stands, degrades the human condition and has ruled to be a crime against humanity when that type of thinking leads to the justification of slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination, genocide and other abuses of power by a government. There is a rational basis for considering that type of thinking to be a crime against humanity because when you examine the doctrine, it says that in the case of , let's say, discrimination, that the discrimination allowed will be good for the community as a whole. But when? During the lifetime that the leaders are controlling the community? When war criminals were being hanged for saying that they were doing those things for the common good, their last words of some of them were that even though they were being hanged to their death, that what they did will be proven to be good for the country after their death.
And what is the good that is supposed to come from what abuses they did? And what is the good that is to come in some future time to this community for allowing anti-Semitic statement to be seen as civil in the thread where they are originally posted?
more...
Lou

 

Lou's response to Beckett's post-pstnmilgm

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 20:23:17

In reply to Lou's response to Beckett's post-getbak, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 13:04:21

> > > wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> > > If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> > > True or False:
> > > A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> > > B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> > > C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> > > D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> > > E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> > > F. more of your choice
> > > Lou
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
> >
> > However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
> >
> > There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
> > .
> > This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.
>
> Friends,
> It is written above. And what is written could influence you to be hostile to me on the basis that there are the satems concerning my character as:
> A.[...a target of accusations...] (that I can be seen as the subject person targeting)
> B.[...targeting Dinah could go against some of my tenants (which could be thought to be Judaism
> C.[ could not a down regulation of {conflict}..as pope *suffer*...]
> D.[..your threads have a strong influence (the departure of posters)...]
> E.[...Back off Dinah...].
> Friends, the overriding aspect of the post here is that it carries a message to a subset of readers that I object to. The message is nothing new, but an old message, entrenched in the dogma of European fascism that some readers could know here starting with the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau where modern fascism starting in 1922 took hold of European political thought.
> Many of you already know the horrors that came from that type of thinking as it had it's core in what the fascists called {the common good}. That is analogous to:
> [..doing what will be good for the community as a whole...]. You see, in that type of thinking, what is right or wrong is put aside and what will be good for the country trumps all morality, all laws, and a subset of people could think that the concept of the common good to be the deciding factor as to what stands, degrades the human condition and has ruled to be a crime against humanity when that type of thinking leads to the justification of slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination, genocide and other abuses of power by a government. There is a rational basis for considering that type of thinking to be a crime against humanity because when you examine the doctrine, it says that in the case of , let's say, discrimination, that the discrimination allowed will be good for the community as a whole. But when? During the lifetime that the leaders are controlling the community? When war criminals were being hanged for saying that they were doing those things for the common good, their last words of some of them were that even though they were being hanged to their death, that what they did will be proven to be good for the country after their death.
> And what is the good that is supposed to come from what abuses they did? And what is the good that is to come in some future time to this community for allowing anti-Semitic statement to be seen as civil in the thread where they are originally posted?
> more...
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Now what if something happens to show that the leaders that said to trust them and that they were doing what they are doing for the common good was against all law and morality? They could say that it (will be) good for the country as a whole. SO the judgment is deferred to the future. But what future? Those leaders using the mind-set of {the common good} could continue on the basis that they can't show any time frame for their actions to become fruitful, so they rely on the hope of telling the citizens to "trust me". Those that accept that actually put faith in the leader that says that. Even beyond their faith in the God that they give service and worship to. This could lead to actual worship of those that say that they are doing whatever they are doing for the common good, when what they are doing is against their own laws.
So they change their laws, or use {selective enforcement} of their laws. And protect those that worship them by allowing them to break the laws. And worse, those that see through it all, are stigmatized derogatorily and silenced or even killed. The citizens are told to ignore them.
But how long can they continue on deceiving the citizens? It can go on until circumstances arise so that the people start to see that the payoff promised by doing what will be good for the community as a whole starts to be seen as too far off and unachievable. Then they are either arrested and tried as criminals for their crimes committed under doing what will be good for the community as a whole, (the common good), or they commit suicide or are executed by the citizens themselves as they see that they were betrayed.
The hand of justice sometimes is stayed in many of the historical examples of this to give those that have allowed Jews to be humiliated and persecuted an opportunity to repudiate anti-Semitism. In any war-crimes trials, those that had an opportunity to save their lives instead killed themselves or accepted execution rather than admit that what they really wanted was to use the population to reap power and control of others. The psychology is well-documented.
Lou

 

Lou's request- 10derheart

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:35:03

In reply to Read this thread, posted by 10derheart on July 3, 2014, at 18:50:38

> ...if you want your head to explode.
>
> (hello, Scott)

10,
What do you want readers to believe by your use of {if you want your head to explode}?
Lou

 

Lou's reply-duyuno? SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:49:19

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-opper Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 3, 2014, at 14:35:42

> > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
>
> > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
>
> Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request- Lou Pilder

Posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2014, at 22:08:25

In reply to Lou's request- 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:35:03

> > ...if you want your head to explode.
> >
> > (hello, Scott)
>
> 10,
> What do you want readers to believe by your use of {if you want your head to explode}?
> Lou

Oh I dunno, Lou. Let's see....
Maybe I want them to take it literally.
Messy, no?
Hugs and kisses. -- therresidentevilex-deputy.....aka Horribleheart

 

Re: Lou's reply-duyuno? Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on July 6, 2014, at 7:40:22

In reply to Lou's reply-duyuno? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 21:49:19

> > > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> >
> > > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
> >
> > Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
> On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
> But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
> Lou

Have you ever accused the deputies of fostering antisemitism?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-iyphuno SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 9:08:04

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-duyuno? Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 6, 2014, at 7:40:22

> > > > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > > Scott,
> > > > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > >
> > > > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
> > >
> > > Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
> > On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
> > But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
> > Lou
>
> Have you ever accused the deputies of fostering antisemitism?
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
What are the criteria that you use to determine if one is accused of fostering antisemitism, if you know?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-iyphuno Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on July 7, 2014, at 6:50:07

In reply to Lou's reply-iyphuno SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2014, at 9:08:04

> > > > > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott,
> > > > > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > > >
> > > > > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
> > > >
> > > > Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
> > > On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
> > > But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
> > > Lou
> >
> > Have you ever accused the deputies of fostering antisemitism?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> What are the criteria that you use to determine if one is accused of fostering antisemitism, if you know?
> Lou
>

According to your own criteria, has antisemitism ever been fostered on Psycho-Babble? If so, who do you believe is responsible for this? If not, then shall this be your last post on this subject?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-eyeduno

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 8:37:43

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-iyphuno Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 7, 2014, at 6:50:07

> > > > > > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > > Scott,
> > > > The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
> > > > On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
> > > > But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Have you ever accused the deputies of fostering antisemitism?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > What are the criteria that you use to determine if one is accused of fostering antisemitism, if you know?
> > Lou
> >
>
> According to your own criteria, has antisemitism ever been fostered on Psycho-Babble? If so, who do you believe is responsible for this? If not, then shall this be your last post on this subject?
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
The question of who is responsible for anti-Semitism being fostered in any community IMHHHO, falls on all of those that could prevent it from being fostered. Here, in this community the content is controlled by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies in the great part, but members could also influence the thinking here in relation to allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand to be considered to be supportive and that they will be good for this community ad a whole by being apathetic, (bystander apathy) oe even supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to allow those statements to stand without sanction to the statement where it is originally posted. A case could be brought against all those that help, or helped, Mr. Hsiung to put this forum on the internet, including The University of Chicago. There is a disclaimer that has been posted on the email address of Mr. Hsiung to give the impression that they are not involved in the operation of this site, but the site was considered research from that university at the start, so a subset of jurists could think that they are part of this even though they have posted the disclaimer, for there was help by them to attract readers when they could be seen as in some way part of the experiment in the beginning and can not disjoint themselves after it got people to join, for some could have joined because they thought the forum was in some way affiliated with that university.
Also, the laws concerning defamation in the U.S. on the internet allow the owner of internet forums to be immune from liability if they allow the third-party users to post defamation toward an individual {in certain circumstances}. But here, the defamation can be considered by a subset of readers to be directed toward an identifiable set of people, the Jews and also Islamic people and those that are non-Christian faiths, which a subset of readers could consider to be a hate-crime. They may not get judicial relief in the U.S. , but in many Islamic countries, Mr. Hsiung could be convicted of insulting Islam for not posting a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven}and other statements that insult Islam as it is seen unsanctioned by the fact that there is not a tagline by Mr. Hsiung or any of his deputies linked to the post where it is originally posted so that the statement can be considered to be not against his rules and supportive and will be good for his community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and that he want readers to try to trust him in what he does. That could mean to a subset of readers that he could be advocating hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians by allowing what could put down Jews and the others to be seen as civil and supportive. The law in the U.S is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling that will come next term if they allow the case in question to be heard. The case is a parallel case to the situation that I find myself in here, as that third-party posts are allowed to stand that defame Judaism and me personally by the owner and his team of deputies of record for the posts. And worse, I am allowing Mr. Hsiung and his deputies the opportunity to post repudiations to those posts where they are originally posted, and that opportunity is being rejected to some of those as can be seen now.
And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
There are many ways for an administration to foster hatred toward the Jews. One way is to not apply their own rules to anti-Semitic hate posts and allow them to be seen as supportive. A question for courts to decide is if the deputies have a {duty} to sanction posts that are against the rules of their forum, or could they ignore their own rules? In some countries outside the U.S., failure to sanction a post that could induce a person to commit harm, convicts those in charge of the internet forum as being guilty and are liable for the deaths of the persons. The question is if failure to act is the same as "fostering"? That is the word that the high court will decide if they hear the parallel case next term. My friend -of- the- court brief will have the thrust to show what happens to me and Jews in this forum as a result of the deputies and owner leaving anti-Semitic statements and defaming statement against me to stand un repudiated as to having a tagline posted to the statement where the post originates. I will be competing with AOL, Google, Amazon and a host of other internet forums that have already submitted their friend of the court briefs, for they do not want to be held liable for if they allow third-party hate or defamation. I would guess that the issue is not one of what is right or wrong, but an issue of what happens if the courtt says that forum owners could be held liable for third-party defamation posted on their site if they do not post a repudiation to those posts. If they rule in my thinking that they have a duty to stop those type of posts, they would have to hire people to review each post before it goes on-line. That could cost a lot, but it could create jobs for out-of-work journalists.
My brief will go to the lawyers bringing the case to the high court, which have their offices near were I live in Southern Ohio. Their office is in northern Kentucky. My brief will be much different than AOL, Amazon,and Google's, focusing on the potential spreading of hatred toward the Jews and others by a psychiatrist that has strict rules not to post what could lead one to feel put down or lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down, and allows {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to stand without the tagline to not post what could put down those of other faiths to the statement where it is posted, which is different from that the owner of the site that will be the subject of the high court, is not a psychiatrist. You see, the tragic consequences that could befall Jews by the fact that anti-Semitic statements can be seen here as supportive, has historical parallels that a psychiatrist could be aware of in particular but not limited to the relation historically between psychiatry a and mass-murder.
The high court will not meet until this October again, so for now, all I can do is try to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil where they are posted without his tagline to please be civil and hope that the deputies of record post why they did not sanction the posts in question when they were first posted. Until then, Mr. Hsiung can allow the fire of hate to be seen as to be still burning and not put it out by posting a sanction to the posts in question where the post originates. As to if by the omission of the sanction there induces the fostering of anti-Semitism, there are a subset of readers here that could act out when they see a statement not sanctioned as to be not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, so they could act out in a drug-induced mind-altered state to commit mass-murder as many psychologists are now writing about in relation to school shootings and mall-shootings and such. That is one of the differences in my brief from Amazon and AOL and such. Here the population is allowed to be persuaded that they can take psychotropic drugs that alter their minds and can induce hostility and suicidal thoughts in them. That makes this site a potential haven for Jew-haters to have gratification to see the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand in their original posting, for a subset of readers could think that Mr. Hsung and his deputies of record are validating the hate.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-eyeduno Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on July 7, 2014, at 17:11:23

In reply to Lou's reply-eyeduno, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 8:37:43

> And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record

Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-psaira SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 20:05:47

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-eyeduno Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 7, 2014, at 17:11:23

> > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
>
> Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
The issue in the U.S.courts now is if the operator {created} or {developed} as in this case, anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me, the content in question, as operators are immune from liability for what a third party posts unleass they are creators or developers of the actionable material. And if so, then the owner/operator of a site could be liable for what a third-party posted here. It is the understanding of what {developed} means to different jurisdictions and the high court may determine that. You use the word {encourage} which is or could be analogous to {develop}in particular circumstances.
But here we have some different aspects of this situation that I think deserve discussion as per your question as to if Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitsm. If the high court hears this and rules in my favor by saying that the owner/operator in the parallel case developed or created the defamatory material and is liable as if he posted it himself, then I could have all of the statements here that I am objecting to be known to have been allowed contrary to U.S. law. But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here. Let us look at the case in question to follow.
Lou

 

Lou's reply-psaira-the case

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 20:13:49

In reply to Lou's reply-psaira SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 20:05:47

> > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
> >
> > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> The issue in the U.S.courts now is if the operator {created} or {developed} as in this case, anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me, the content in question, as operators are immune from liability for what a third party posts unleass they are creators or developers of the actionable material. And if so, then the owner/operator of a site could be liable for what a third-party posted here. It is the understanding of what {developed} means to different jurisdictions and the high court may determine that. You use the word {encourage} which is or could be analogous to {develop}in particular circumstances.
> But here we have some different aspects of this situation that I think deserve discussion as per your question as to if Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitsm. If the high court hears this and rules in my favor by saying that the owner/operator in the parallel case developed or created the defamatory material and is liable as if he posted it himself, then I could have all of the statements here that I am objecting to be known to have been allowed contrary to U.S. law. But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here. Let us look at the case in question to follow.
> Lou
>

Scott,
Here is the case that is undecided.
Lou
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=historical

 

Re: Lou's reply-psaira-the case Lou Pilder

Posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2014, at 21:05:09

In reply to Lou's reply-psaira-the case, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 20:13:49

Dirty who? Cheerleaders? STD's what the heck does this have to do with mental health? Wow Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's reply-psaira Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on July 8, 2014, at 19:03:15

In reply to Lou's reply-psaira SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 20:05:47

> > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record

> > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?

But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here.

Yes, that's what I asked.

So, what do you think?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-rheplehycmnttheo SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2014, at 20:13:36

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psaira Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 8, 2014, at 19:03:15

> > > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
>
> > > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
>
> But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here.
>
> Yes, that's what I asked.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
Encouragement of hatred to the Jews can be effected by many posts here culminating is making that conclusion or not to a subset of readers. They could have a rational basis for making that conclusion if the factors that could lead one to think that are seen.
One factor is in anti-Semitism there is something against the Jews. And another factor is that statements could be allowed to be seen as civil that put down Jews. And another factor is that statements could be seen as civil that accuse Jews. And there are more factors than just those.
Let us look at this one post first to show what I mean in one instance.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html

 

Lou's reply-ehncurgheyt

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2014, at 16:00:15

In reply to Lou's reply-rheplehycmnttheo SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2014, at 20:13:36

> > > > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
> >
> > > > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
> >
> > But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I asked.
> >
> > So, what do you think?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> Encouragement of hatred to the Jews can be effected by many posts here culminating is making that conclusion or not to a subset of readers. They could have a rational basis for making that conclusion if the factors that could lead one to think that are seen.
> One factor is in anti-Semitism there is something against the Jews. And another factor is that statements could be allowed to be seen as civil that put down Jews. And another factor is that statements could be seen as civil that accuse Jews. And there are more factors than just those.
> Let us look at this one post first to show what I mean in one instance.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html

Scott,
One of the generally accepted meanings of {encourage} is to {support} what is in question. In this site, support is the major goal of the forum. Now support of anti-Semitism can be seen by a subset of readers that understand that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times and that if a statement is not sanctioned it could be thought by readers to be supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules. But what does encourage entail? By Mr. Hsiung saying that what is in question is good ,as in the post in question here, encouragement for what is in question could be seen as supportive. But supportive of what? The statement can be understood by a subset of readers that Judaism has been replaced (theological replacement) by Christianity.
They have a rational basis for thinking that, because the statement says that the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, which Mr. Hsiung added his tagline, {Thanks, I think that's good}. What is good as seen? A subset of Jewish readers could feel that their faith is being put down because I as a Jew feel put down so other Jews could also feel put down when they read it. Dinah of this forum posted that she does not accept {replacement theology} as her group does. My feeling put down is that Mr. Hsiung has encouraged the poster by saying that he thinks it is good and thanks her. The encouragement could be thought that what she posted is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS here on the basis of the thank you to her from Mr. Hsiung. And if that type of thinking is encouraged, then Judaism could be thought to be inferior to Christianity as the statement could be thought that Jews could think that the statement says that they do not have grace or truth in their faith when they read the statement.
This could lead a subset f readers to think that the site is against the Jews, which is what anti-Semitism entails. The statement puts down on the basis that the one faith supersedes the other and one is inferior to the other or one is superior to the other. And to put down another's faith is against the rules, but not in this case.
And for the owner to ratify as being good in the statement, the owner himself takes the position of encouragement for what is posted. Not only does he allow the statement to be seen as civil, but he validates it as being good. But he does not validate the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me as being good. That is another issue here.
But be it as it may be, the statement stands un repudiated and in fact good according to the owner here. This is greatly important when I write here about {neutrality}.
I ask you:
A. If it is good according to Mr. Hsiung that the poster believes the statement in question, does that in your opinion encourage others here to consider Jews in a different light that do not believe that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ?
B. Could Mr. Hsiung's tagline lead others to think that anti-Semitism is state-sponsored here?
C. If the poster gets encouragement from Mr. Hsiung, is he neutral in respect to Judaism?
D. other aspects...
Lou

 

Lou's reply-ehncurgheyt-inpsult

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2015, at 5:53:14

In reply to Lou's reply-ehncurgheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2014, at 16:00:15

> > > > > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
> > >
> > > > > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
> > >
> > > But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I asked.
> > >
> > > So, what do you think?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > Encouragement of hatred to the Jews can be effected by many posts here culminating is making that conclusion or not to a subset of readers. They could have a rational basis for making that conclusion if the factors that could lead one to think that are seen.
> > One factor is in anti-Semitism there is something against the Jews. And another factor is that statements could be allowed to be seen as civil that put down Jews. And another factor is that statements could be seen as civil that accuse Jews. And there are more factors than just those.
> > Let us look at this one post first to show what I mean in one instance.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
>
> Scott,
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {encourage} is to {support} what is in question. In this site, support is the major goal of the forum. Now support of anti-Semitism can be seen by a subset of readers that understand that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times and that if a statement is not sanctioned it could be thought by readers to be supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules. But what does encourage entail? By Mr. Hsiung saying that what is in question is good ,as in the post in question here, encouragement for what is in question could be seen as supportive. But supportive of what? The statement can be understood by a subset of readers that Judaism has been replaced (theological replacement) by Christianity.
> They have a rational basis for thinking that, because the statement says that the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, which Mr. Hsiung added his tagline, {Thanks, I think that's good}. What is good as seen? A subset of Jewish readers could feel that their faith is being put down because I as a Jew feel put down so other Jews could also feel put down when they read it. Dinah of this forum posted that she does not accept {replacement theology} as her group does. My feeling put down is that Mr. Hsiung has encouraged the poster by saying that he thinks it is good and thanks her. The encouragement could be thought that what she posted is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS here on the basis of the thank you to her from Mr. Hsiung. And if that type of thinking is encouraged, then Judaism could be thought to be inferior to Christianity as the statement could be thought that Jews could think that the statement says that they do not have grace or truth in their faith when they read the statement.
> This could lead a subset f readers to think that the site is against the Jews, which is what anti-Semitism entails. The statement puts down on the basis that the one faith supersedes the other and one is inferior to the other or one is superior to the other. And to put down another's faith is against the rules, but not in this case.
> And for the owner to ratify as being good in the statement, the owner himself takes the position of encouragement for what is posted. Not only does he allow the statement to be seen as civil, but he validates it as being good. But he does not validate the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me as being good. That is another issue here.
> But be it as it may be, the statement stands un repudiated and in fact good according to the owner here. This is greatly important when I write here about {neutrality}.
> I ask you:
> A. If it is good according to Mr. Hsiung that the poster believes the statement in question, does that in your opinion encourage others here to consider Jews in a different light that do not believe that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ?
> B. Could Mr. Hsiung's tagline lead others to think that anti-Semitism is state-sponsored here?
> C. If the poster gets encouragement from Mr. Hsiung, is he neutral in respect to Judaism?
> D. other aspects...
> Lou

Scot,
I am wondering if you could continue the discussion that we are having here in this thread concerning the statements that can be seen here as being supportive where they are originally posted concerning that they could have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and anti Islamic feelings and also insulting to others of faiths that are non-Christian faiths. If you could, then I would like for you to comment on the following statement that can be seen as supportive where it is originally posted that I am attempting to have Mr. Hsiung post a repudiation to where it is originally posted. The statement in question which I think could be disrespectful to those of faiths that believe that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian is:
[..No non-Christian will...]
which is analogous to:
[..No Jew will...]
[..No Islamic person will...]
[..Only Christians will...]
If the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and other non Christians that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian to be insulting to them, do you think that anti-Semitism and anti Islamic feelings could be encouraged here while the statement in question can be considered to be supportive here on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that members are to be civil at all times and that Mr. Hsiung has posted that if a statement is not sanctioned,(and recently posted that he revised that, but I think it is too late to do that for it is after the fact and the revision is not in the FAQ/TOS) then it is not against his rules?
Lou

 

Lou's reply-psaira-the case-CDA/230 Phillipa

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2015, at 8:49:06

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-psaira-the case Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on July 7, 2014, at 21:05:09

> Dirty who? Cheerleaders? STD's what the heck does this have to do with mental health? Wow Phillipa

P,
The case is about if a web site owner/operator can use third party posters to defame another and be immune from being responsible for libel.
It depends. Right now there is a law called CDA/230 that makes the operator immune from third party poster's defamation to another. Here, Judaism is being defamed openly and is seen as being supportive, and worse, it will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for his community as a whole to be seen as civil by him. This could cause Jews to feel demeaned and insulted in that a psychiatrist will allow anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen by him without his tagline to be civil, which could stigmatize a Jew here and defame Judaism itself. And since the poster of the antisemitsm is allowed to be immune from his rules for enforcing his own rules, a subset of readers could see and think that he is in concert with those members to spread anti-Semitic hate which could inflict emotional distress on Jewish members here as he states that members are to be civil at all times, but anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation toward me are exempt from him applying his rules to those posts. The case is about if CDA/230 should or should not apply because the owner allowed the defamation.
The last decision is that CDA/230 makes the owner immune from 3erd -party defamation, UNLESS. The UNLESS needs to be clarified by the high court and may be heard. My understanding of CDA/230 does not allow Mr. Hsiung to be in concert with members here to inflict harm against the Jews and me as a Jew here and have CDA/230 exempt him. For if he has the intent to use his forum to allow anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil, that alone IMHO disqualifies him from protection via CDA/230. For, you see, I do not think that there can be support without justice, and I am denied equal protection of his rules.
Jefferson penned the light of equality, [...We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal...]. Jefferson has left and gone away. I will carry his torch for him.
Lou


This is the end of the 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.