Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2013, at 7:19:34
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » SLS, posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:45:49
> I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
>
> > > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
> >
> > Does censorship have a place?
>
> My preference is to have as little as possible. Especially of content as opposed to style. I'm not going to waste time in defending anyones right to use a particular word in this setting.
> >
> > > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
> >
> > > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
> >
> > The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
>
> I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.
>
> I wasn't however using the term scapegoat to try and force shutdown of your discussion. I meant it to be part of my argument. It wasn't your treatment of Lou that made me think of scapegoating - it was the strength of your apparent belief that driving Lou into the wilderness (or his posts) would somehow take away the problem of low posting volume. And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.
>
> > > > What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
> >
> > > It really shouldn't matter what I per
>
> >
> > I think it matters. It helps to understand posting dynamics. Why would you not want to volunteer this information? Is each man an island?
> >
> > > As it happens he is one of several people who's posts I rarely read. I have decided that they are unlikely to contain any information of interest to me and they annoy me so I tend to skip them.
> >
> > Do you think that there should be unqualified freedom of speech here?
>
> I was not in favor of the stricter civility rules when posters first started arguing for them years ago. For the most part I could live with them however and they mattered a lot to some posters who I respected. And they didn't go far enough for some.
>
> >
> > > I also think that everybody else should be able to choose for themselves whether to read or not read them.
> >
> > How would one come to decide such a thing if they had not yet read them?
>
> Have they really changed that much over the years? My spot checks suggest not. Yes - I could miss something someday. I have found my impressions of some posters changing over the years - often for the better. Those discoveries can be one of the perks of hanging around a place for a long time. But I'm ok with missing posts that I might have liked. I no longer feel I have to read every single one and that makes my life much easier.
>
> >
> > You make a great deal of sense.
> >
> > Let me see if I can make some adjustments.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I think Dr. Bob should either delete the specifications of overgeneralization and exaggeration as sanctionable content in his FAQ or explain why Lou Pilder's posts fail to qualify for such sanctions.
>
> The overgeneralizations/exaggerations part of the rules was always one of the parts I had the biggest problem with. But I'm OK with the FAQ not keeping up with the reality of the rules on babble. In that way I think it's like real life where unofficial changes usually come first and then eventually the official rules catch up.
>
> Friends,
Jane wrote,[...I think here Lou has been made the classical scapegoat...I am very uncomfortable labeling any one poster as the cause...].
I appreciate Jane's statement as what she says can be seen by her and felt by her and is willing for her to post what she is experiencing when reading the posts about me here. And there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me ere to Mr. Hsiung
There is historical parallel here that I am prevented from posting about due to prohibitions made to me by Mr. Hsiung. And readers be advised that there are numerous prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung that I am abiding by. You may read here that there is a statement that could mean that the poster is saying that my posts are overgeneralizations and/or exaggerations. Mr Hsiung states that he IS enforcing his rules here.
You see, is it specified as to what posts of mine constitute overgeneralization/exaggeration? This could mean that any or all of my posts constitute such, could it not?
What is plainly visible is that since there is not a specification in this thread as to what posts of mine constitute such, then readers IMHO could see me in what is called a {false light}, since the readers here could think that any of my posts fall into that category.
In a previous post, it is brought up that I use the {generally accepted} number of deaths last year from psychotropic drugs to be 42,000. If that is overgeneralizing or exaggeration, then one could do a search in Google by using,[psychiatric drugs, deaths, 42000] and get pages upon pages of articles using that figure from different sources. The figure comes from recorded deaths in the U.S. You could do the same search for the United Kingdom, or Sweden, or Canada in particular and see their deaths there from psychotropic drugs.
You see, I have come here to save lives, free people from addiction and depression and prevent life-ruining conditions. I am prevented from posting here what could lead those out of the darkness of depression and addiction due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
I have seen one criticism (that failed) of a paper written that uses the facts that I post here that was written by a group to alert parents that giving children mind-altering drugs could kill their child. And in that article, when they got to the 42000, they DID NOT DISPUTE the number at all.
And yesterday I read of a famous TV personality that died at a young age from taking heroin and alcohol together, like I have been warning here of taking two CNS depressant drugs together. You see, there is a GREAT DECEPTION that I am prevented from posting about here. But I say to you, that death from these drugs is no exaggeration, my friends, and the number of 42000 deaths per year will go up, statistically that is, as long as people are led to believe that it will be, or may be, good for this community as a whole to have my notifications here remain outstanding. For you see, if they were responded to, then I could have the opportunity to respond to whatever Mr Hsiung posts as his response, which I think would be good for not only this community, but to give readers the opportunity to see facts that could make the difference between accepting what the TV commercials from the drug companies say or not. This then,
>
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1047296
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047738.html