Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1055291

Shown: posts 118 to 142 of 142. Go back in thread:

 

To Dr. Bob - move this thread to admin

Posted by baseball55 on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:13

In reply to Lou's response-the psycholy that is plainly visibl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 14:44:50

Why is this on the psychology board? Can't we move this to administration. The psychology board has always been a refuge for me and not an arena of conflict. Please move this

 

Would you expect the same of other media? -Repost alexandra_k

Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:46:52

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 19:01:14

Repost:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056278.html

--------------------------------------------

Re: Distress

> > > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...

> > Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.

> That is a shame.

What is a shame?


- Scott

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media?

Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:28:06

> Re: Distress
>
> > > > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
>
> > > Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.
>
> > That is a shame.
>
> What is a shame?

perhaps i misunderstood.

i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.

(of course i do appreciate that there are immense difficulties with respect to situations-under-descriptions / situations-from-perspectives etc etc etc. yet another way to get paralyzed...)

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media? alexandra_k

Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29

> i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.

I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?


- Scott

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media?

Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04

> > i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.

> I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?

ah. neither of those. i think i mis-understood you.

i was thinking on why some people on some occasions hurt others in the name of protecting someone else.

i went off on my own tangent and wasn't really connecting with what you were saying. sorry 'bout that.

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media?

Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11

it is hard...

i have recently come around to the view that failing to punish defectors is itself a form of defection. because of tragedy of commons type situations.

only...

perhaps now i'm coming to see that this may not be so.

i went to a talk on trust. part of it was about what was required for trust. to be competent. to recognise that another depended on us to act on that competence. to then act from the basis of recognising another depended on us to act on that competence. roughly... that was sort of what i took from the idea.

one can fail to be trusworthy because one isn't competent. this isn't necessarily bad. i am an incompetent murderer. my incompetence doesn't make me morally reprehensible or anything like that. but you shouldn't trust me to be competent in that sphere. and i shouldn't signal that i am competent in that sphere.

so competence.

recognition of dependence. sometimes we drop the ball because we didn't realise that others were relying or counting on us. i think i do this often. i think the idea is that here also it isn't about being morally reprehensible. it is another kind of incompetence. it isn't about morality, though.

anyway... point being... maybe we don't need to punish defectors. defectors... perhaps their defection is better explained by the above (and perhaps more kinds of) incompetence. and fixing up the incopmetencies would be something like 'giving them the skills' to contribute to society appropriately. people... well... it does take time to learn who the reliable signallers etc are. that is why it takes a year or so to settle in to a new environment. and why moving all the time is so hard... because unless you are connected people will typically assume you aren't particularly trustworthy. or at least... other people typically improve their opinion of me in time. or perhaps i find a better niche for myself with time or... whatever.

tangent?

there was stuff about signalling, too. and how some people are reliable (trusworthy ha!) signallers of competence and promises while others are... perhaps not.

anyway. i felt more at peace about my having dropped the ball rather with respect to my thesis... mostly because of the later. perhaps a bit because of the former. i see that half the battle with people is getting reliable signals out of them... perhaps because people fail to recognise the function of signalling... due to inability, yeah. not a moral failing...

it was a nice talk, yeah.

anyway... it has me thinking on incompetence (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one actually can and cannot do) and recognition of the needs of others (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one can perceive with respect to that).

and thinking about me

(memememememe)

was all.

no judgement (especially moral!) on you...

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media?

Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32

(this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)

 

Re: Would you expect the same of other media? alexandra_k

Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 6:40:40

In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27

> (this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)

I am still processing and decompressing from reading your posts. :-) They certainly provoke thought!


- Scott

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas?

Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56

In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:04

I have one: It seems entirely logical and appropriate for an admin to move the posts containing references to anti-semitism, etc. to the faith board where they belong.

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? Moishe Pipik

Posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56

I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? Phillipa

Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 21:53:35

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? Moishe Pipik, posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09

> I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa

Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate. It has no more place on the Faith board as does discussions of racism and apartheid.

The Faith forum is moderated differently than the other boards. It helps to review the preamble at the top of the Faith board to understand its personality and how it works.
Of course, the judging of the appropriateness of posts on the Faith board is the role of administration, and therefore belong on the Administration board.

"Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs."

Lou Pilder has some legitimate questions based upon the verbiage in the quote cited above. However, I thought they had been ruled upon a long time ago. If Dr. Bob is willing to revisit issues regarding statements of exclusivity to be found in the writings and philosophies of some religions, it might be more constructive to comment on the philosophy of the Faith board and its operation.

"Nobody is right if everybody is wrong" - Stephen Stills

I often refer to this lyric when I feel the need to exercise tolerance. It allows me to focus on the positive aspects of a religion so that I may profit from them and incorporate them into my belief system.


- Scott

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? SLS

Posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? Phillipa, posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 21:53:35

>Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate.

Could it be either or both?

Wasn't it faith for Hitler? A kind of revelation?

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? sigismund

Posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 22:33:26

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? SLS, posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01

Sigi it just keeps going on and on I don't think there is an answer no idea why I even replied on this thread. Religion is not my thing nor is hate. PJ

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? sigismund

Posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? SLS, posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01

> >Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate.
>
> Could it be either or both?

It can be based upon religious doctrine and faith in that doctrine, but the the antisemitism itself is still an intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people. Without the hate, there is no antisemitism - there are only difference.

> Wasn't it faith for Hitler? A kind of revelation?

I don't think so.

He got pissed off for not being admitted to a Viennese art school that was predominantly Jewish. Also, he became enamored of the policies and philosophy of the mayor of Vienna, who was antisemitic. He learned antisemitism outside the church (which he never attended). I believe his hate and segregation of Jews was more racial and cultural and based upon stereotypes rather than on differences in religious doctrine. Although born into Catholicism, he found this religion not to his liking and ridiculed it. I don't know to what degree he believed in any religion. His tolerance of Christianity was probably more political than religious.

Lou Pilder is critical of the following passage to be found in the New Testament:

John 14:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

How do you interpret this? Do you agree with Lou Pilder that Dr. Bob ought to sanction against the posting of these word? I don't. I think it should be allowed to be cited by a poster as long is not directed at people personally.

I don't fully understand Dr. Bob's feelings on this anymore, but I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:

1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."

As opposed to:

2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."

If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1. If it is not civil, how would you word the description of one's belief in the biblical passage I cited?


- Scott

 

Re: so much distress

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 17:24:35

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? sigismund, posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10

> I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
>
> I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
>
> You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.

> Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
>
> Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
>
> Dinah

Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help

However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.

I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.

Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?

> > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
>
> Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
>
> Dinah

No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.

> What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
>
> - Scott

For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.

> As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
>
> Moishe Pipik

> Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
>
> Dinah

I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.

> I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
>
> Dinah

Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?

> ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
>
> 10derheart

From another thread:

> > I see your point of view as:
> >
> > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> >
> > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> >
> > Whereas my point of view is:
> >
> > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> >
> > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> >
> > Reasonable people can disagree, right?

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html

> when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
>
> Dinah

I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:

> > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

> I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
>
> - Scott

From another thread:

> > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> >
> > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> >
> > 1. not sling it back
> > 2. shield themselves
> > 3. help others shield themselves
> > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > 5. express how they feel
> > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > 7. support the slinger

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html

--

> I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
>
> 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
>
> As opposed to:
>
> 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
>
> If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
>
> - Scott

You're right, I see #1 as like:

> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.

which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:

> > People should have one God and no others before him.

which I don't consider OK:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html

--

> I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
>
> I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.

Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.

May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?

> I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat.
>
> But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
>
> My fury is now against Dr. Bob.

Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.

> I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
>
> So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
>
> Dinah

If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?

If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.

Bob

 

Lou's response-wazkulwhabit Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 16:37:35

In reply to Re: so much distress, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 17:24:35

> > I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
> >
> > I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
> >
> > You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.
>
> > Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
> >
> > Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
>
> However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
>
> I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
>
> Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
>
> > > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
> >
> > Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
>
> > What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
> >
> > - Scott
>
> For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
>
> > As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
> >
> > Moishe Pipik
>
> > Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
>
> > I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
>
> > ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > I see your point of view as:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> > >
> > > Whereas my point of view is:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> > >
> > > Reasonable people can disagree, right?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
>
> > when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
>
> > > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> > I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> > >
> > > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> > >
> > > 1. not sling it back
> > > 2. shield themselves
> > > 3. help others shield themselves
> > > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > > 5. express how they feel
> > > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > > 7. support the slinger
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
>
> --
>
> > I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
> >
> > 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > As opposed to:
> >
> > 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You're right, I see #1 as like:
>
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
>
> > > People should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> --
>
> > I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
> >
> > I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
>
> Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
>
> May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
>
> > I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat.
> >
> > But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
> >
> > My fury is now against Dr. Bob.
>
> Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
>
> > I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
> >
> > So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
> >
> > Dinah
>
> If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
>
> If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
>
> Bob

Friends,
There are a lot of psychological tactics being used here that you could be unbeknownst of. And I think that if you are in darkness, that you could be freed and be led into a marvelous light if you knew the truth, for it has been revealed to me that the truth can make one free.
Now it is written here,[...notifying me just means that I will be aware. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily act...]. Oh yeah? Let us look at this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html

 

Lou's response-whtizgudforlu

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 17:14:05

In reply to Lou's response-wazkulwhabit Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 16:37:35

> > > I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
> > >
> > > I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
> > >
> > > You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.
> >
> > > Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
> > >
> > > Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> >
> > However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
> >
> > I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
> >
> > Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
> >
> > > > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
> > >
> > > Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
> >
> > > What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
> >
> > > As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
> > >
> > > Moishe Pipik
> >
> > > Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
> >
> > > I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
> >
> > > ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
> > >
> > > 10derheart
> >
> > From another thread:
> >
> > > > I see your point of view as:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> > > >
> > > > Whereas my point of view is:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> > > >
> > > > Reasonable people can disagree, right?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
> >
> > > when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
> >
> > > > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> >
> > > I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > From another thread:
> >
> > > > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> > > >
> > > > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> > > >
> > > > 1. not sling it back
> > > > 2. shield themselves
> > > > 3. help others shield themselves
> > > > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > > > 5. express how they feel
> > > > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > > > 7. support the slinger
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > > I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
> > >
> > > 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> > >
> > > As opposed to:
> > >
> > > 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> > >
> > > If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > You're right, I see #1 as like:
> >
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
> >
> > > > People should have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > which I don't consider OK:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > > I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
> > >
> > > I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
> >
> > Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
> >
> > May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
> >
> > > I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat.
> > >
> > > But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
> > >
> > > My fury is now against Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
> >
> > > I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
> > >
> > > So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
> >
> > If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Friends,
> There are a lot of psychological tactics being used here that you could be unbeknownst of. And I think that if you are in darkness, that you could be freed and be led into a marvelous light if you knew the truth, for it has been revealed to me that the truth can make one free.
> Now it is written here,[...notifying me just means that I will be aware. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily act...]. Oh yeah? Let us look at this post:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
>
Friends,
The administration here can control the content and you could be steered to a direction that could lead to your death, or addiction or a life-ruining condition. I have come here to show you a way to be free and have a new life and sing a new song. There are prohibitions to me from Mr Hsiung that prevent me from posting what has been revealed to me that IMHHHO could open up a whole new life to you. A life of freedom from lies, for the truth can make you free.
Now it is written here ,[...I'm thinking about the board's best interest, I can't know what is in Lou's best interest...].
There are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me to Mr Hsiung. There are statements that are anti-Semitic that are allowed to stand. I have a fear of becoming a victim of anti-Semitic violence that I have been attempting for years to have the anti-Semitic statements stopped so that a subset of readers could not think that Mr Hsiung is validating the antisemitism by the nature that he states that support takes precedence and if statements are not sanctioned, a subset of readers could think that they are considered to be good for this community as a whole. Now it is my deep conviction that hatred toward Jews can come from seeing anti-Semitic statements standing here. And that hate could cause me to be a victim of anti-Semitic violence so it will be good for me to have those statements purged from this community by having them notated as not being conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and that they are not in accordance with Mr Hsiung's drafted rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
Here are a couple of posts.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/997025.html
[ admin, 428781 ]

 

Lou's response-pupu

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 19:23:57

In reply to Lou's response-whtizgudforlu, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 17:14:05

> > > > I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
> > > >
> > > > I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
> > > >
> > > > You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.
> > >
> > > > Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
> > >
> > > However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
> > >
> > > Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
> > >
> > > > > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
> > >
> > > > What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
> > >
> > > > As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
> > > >
> > > > Moishe Pipik
> > >
> > > > Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
> > >
> > > > I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
> > >
> > > > ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
> > > >
> > > > 10derheart
> > >
> > > From another thread:
> > >
> > > > > I see your point of view as:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whereas my point of view is:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reasonable people can disagree, right?
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
> > >
> > > > when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
> > >
> > > > > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > >
> > > > I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > From another thread:
> > >
> > > > > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. not sling it back
> > > > > 2. shield themselves
> > > > > 3. help others shield themselves
> > > > > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > > > > 5. express how they feel
> > > > > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > > > > 7. support the slinger
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
> > > >
> > > > 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> > > >
> > > > As opposed to:
> > > >
> > > > 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> > > >
> > > > If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > You're right, I see #1 as like:
> > >
> > > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
> > >
> > > > > People should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > which I don't consider OK:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
> > > >
> > > > I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
> > >
> > > Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
> > >
> > > May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
> > >
> > > > I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat.
> > > >
> > > > But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
> > > >
> > > > My fury is now against Dr. Bob.
> > >
> > > Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
> > >
> > > > I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
> > > >
> > > > So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
> > >
> > > If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Friends,
> > There are a lot of psychological tactics being used here that you could be unbeknownst of. And I think that if you are in darkness, that you could be freed and be led into a marvelous light if you knew the truth, for it has been revealed to me that the truth can make one free.
> > Now it is written here,[...notifying me just means that I will be aware. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily act...]. Oh yeah? Let us look at this post:
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> >
> Friends,
> The administration here can control the content and you could be steered to a direction that could lead to your death, or addiction or a life-ruining condition. I have come here to show you a way to be free and have a new life and sing a new song. There are prohibitions to me from Mr Hsiung that prevent me from posting what has been revealed to me that IMHHHO could open up a whole new life to you. A life of freedom from lies, for the truth can make you free.
> Now it is written here ,[...I'm thinking about the board's best interest, I can't know what is in Lou's best interest...].
> There are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me to Mr Hsiung. There are statements that are anti-Semitic that are allowed to stand. I have a fear of becoming a victim of anti-Semitic violence that I have been attempting for years to have the anti-Semitic statements stopped so that a subset of readers could not think that Mr Hsiung is validating the antisemitism by the nature that he states that support takes precedence and if statements are not sanctioned, a subset of readers could think that they are considered to be good for this community as a whole. Now it is my deep conviction that hatred toward Jews can come from seeing anti-Semitic statements standing here. And that hate could cause me to be a victim of anti-Semitic violence so it will be good for me to have those statements purged from this community by having them notated as not being conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and that they are not in accordance with Mr Hsiung's drafted rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> Here are a couple of posts.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/997025.html
> [ admin, 428781 ]
>
> Friends,
There are numerous psychological tactics being used here and I want those to be exposed for you because it is a warning to you. A warning from me that I think if heeded could save your life. There are tactics that psychologists call, denial, deception, evasion, discrimination, projection, repression, blaming the victim, and a host of others. And then there is known what is called psychological manipulation. All of these things used in a community are the beginning of sorrows. For when they are used successfully, they can lead you astray and you could not even know that it is happening to you.
I want those that are following what I have found myself to be in here to examine this post and see where it says:
[...When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing rules and responding either on the board or to posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047017.html

 

Re: Sorry to see so much distress Moishe Pipik

Posted by Angela2 on December 18, 2013, at 20:14:46

In reply to Sorry to see so much distress, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 14, 2013, at 12:06:05

You've summed up my thoughts quite well.

 

Re: responding to notifications

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2013, at 23:59:03

In reply to Lou's response-pupu, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 19:23:57

> I think our policy will be to respond to notifications either by posting to the thread we're notified about or by replying directly to the person who notified us. Unless that rule of 3 applies.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html

> When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047000.html

I guess one could say the 2013 policy was a revision of the 2006 policy.

Bob

 

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? SLS

Posted by sigismund on December 21, 2013, at 17:42:00

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? sigismund, posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10

I was thinking of antisemitism that maintains

Jesus was an Aryan
Paul perverted Christianity.
Freud and Marx
The Jews created communism (USSR), social democracy and plutocracy
WWI
Weimar
WWII
and were a cunning and devilish adversary that needed to be murdered to the last one.

Fair bit of projection in that last bit.

When he was in the hospital blinded by gas and heard of the defeat, that sounded to me like a revelation. I pass no judgement on it. It just sounded like one. I do not mean a Biblical revelation.

 

STOP THE VIOLENCE WHATS WRONG WITH YOU (nm) Poet

Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 4, 2014, at 20:04:38

In reply to Extra hard cyberslaps coming you way Bob (nm), posted by Poet on December 9, 2013, at 17:34:14

 

BANNED FOR THREATENING POSTS (nm) Poet

Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 4, 2014, at 20:07:07

In reply to Correction: YOUR way, Bob. Feel them yet? (nm), posted by Poet on December 9, 2013, at 17:35:22

 

Lou's reply- responding to notifications-dyskrm Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2014, at 18:48:09

In reply to Re: responding to notifications, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2013, at 23:59:03

> > I think our policy will be to respond to notifications either by posting to the thread we're notified about or by replying directly to the person who notified us. Unless that rule of 3 applies.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
>
> > When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047000.html
>
> I guess one could say the 2013 policy was a revision of the 2006 policy.
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that your policy that you give yourself the option of responding to my notifications or not, is a revised policy from your policy that says that you will respond to all notifications here to you.
But how does that include the outstanding notifications from me {before} you say that you revised your policy?
But it is much more than that. For if you give yourself the option of responding to notifications from me while you will respond to all others, since I am the only exception that you state, is that not what constitutes administrative discrimination? And it is much more than that, for I think that if my notifications were responded to, that lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be prevented. I am asking that you post responses to all of my outstanding notifications starting with the most recent.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-whutgud?

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2016, at 12:28:36

In reply to Lou's reply- responding to notifications-dyskrm Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2014, at 18:48:09

> > > I think our policy will be to respond to notifications either by posting to the thread we're notified about or by replying directly to the person who notified us. Unless that rule of 3 applies.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
> >
> > > When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047000.html
> >
> > I guess one could say the 2013 policy was a revision of the 2006 policy.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that your policy that you give yourself the option of responding to my notifications or not, is a revised policy from your policy that says that you will respond to all notifications here to you.
> But how does that include the outstanding notifications from me {before} you say that you revised your policy?
> But it is much more than that. For if you give yourself the option of responding to notifications from me while you will respond to all others, since I am the only exception that you state, is that not what constitutes administrative discrimination? And it is much more than that, for I think that if my notifications were responded to, that lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be prevented. I am asking that you post responses to all of my outstanding notifications starting with the most recent.
> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung,
You say good will come to you if you do not respond to my notification to you.
What is this good?
Lou Pilder


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.