![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 17:48:34
In reply to Lou's reply-rephlexpolo » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 16:54:25
> > Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of JudaiD,
>
> D
> When the drafter of a post uses vague descriptions and problematic language, the readers do not have to read their mind to understand what is written. They then go to the context of the post in relation to thewcontext of the entire thread. And what the reader interprets from the post is what it is, not what the author wanted it to mean. Ifthe author wanted it to mean differently, they could have written it for that understanding.
> Now after placing the post in the context of the thread to understand it, then you could place it in the context of all the related posts eve in other threads. The fact that she wanted me to lie previously to circumvent a rule here shows what it shows and adds to the meaning of her post to me. The fact that Mr Hsiung allows antisemitic statements to tand plays a part in the meaning also. The use of {Sadly} speaks vbolumes. ANd the word is connected to what I believe which throughout the entrire forum is how oe can overcome addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective. The fact that there are years of outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here adds to the meaning. Fot the outstanding requests deal with antisemitic statements being allowed to stand.
> In this one, not only is Judaism insulted, but Islam and other faiths also and people here could think hat it is supportive because it stands wuthout sanction and support takes preceence. SO peole ere could post all they want of antisemitic slurs and such for it is established that antisemitic statements are supportive by the convention of them being alowed to stand for unsupportive statment are ot allowed to stand because one match could start a forest fire. And look at the fire here now.
> Here is a link that starts this off and it has never been sanctioned and my request are still outstanding so the fire of hate is still burning.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
> Then the insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths as in the 2end list #5 as the "worst"
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> Now as long as the fire of hate is burning here, there will be posts that defame Judaism and me as a Jew. There could be many variations of how to do this, but it really doesn't matter to me. For if the word B*llsh*t is directed to me, it says that my faith is B*llsh*t for she connects the two with what I *believe* and what I have been writing here. Sadly that I believe what I write? That could nmean that what Mr Hsiung is allowed to stand "reflects the posting policies here." andthat it is sad that I do not adopt his thinking.
> LouSo you've really been waiting almost 8 years for a reply from this "Mr Hsiung"? And your anger has actually been burning for almost 8 years because you have yet to receive a response? I find that incredible.
Perhaps there's a deputy moderator around here, someone >>>>"temporarily"<<< in charge who could finally resolve this outstanding issue for you.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rephlexpolo, posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 17:48:34
> > > Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of JudaiD,
> >
> > D
> > When the drafter of a post uses vague descriptions and problematic language, the readers do not have to read their mind to understand what is written. They then go to the context of the post in relation to thewcontext of the entire thread. And what the reader interprets from the post is what it is, not what the author wanted it to mean. Ifthe author wanted it to mean differently, they could have written it for that understanding.
> > Now after placing the post in the context of the thread to understand it, then you could place it in the context of all the related posts eve in other threads. The fact that she wanted me to lie previously to circumvent a rule here shows what it shows and adds to the meaning of her post to me. The fact that Mr Hsiung allows antisemitic statements to tand plays a part in the meaning also. The use of {Sadly} speaks vbolumes. ANd the word is connected to what I believe which throughout the entrire forum is how oe can overcome addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective. The fact that there are years of outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here adds to the meaning. Fot the outstanding requests deal with antisemitic statements being allowed to stand.
> > In this one, not only is Judaism insulted, but Islam and other faiths also and people here could think hat it is supportive because it stands wuthout sanction and support takes preceence. SO peole ere could post all they want of antisemitic slurs and such for it is established that antisemitic statements are supportive by the convention of them being alowed to stand for unsupportive statment are ot allowed to stand because one match could start a forest fire. And look at the fire here now.
> > Here is a link that starts this off and it has never been sanctioned and my request are still outstanding so the fire of hate is still burning.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
> > Then the insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths as in the 2end list #5 as the "worst"
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> > Now as long as the fire of hate is burning here, there will be posts that defame Judaism and me as a Jew. There could be many variations of how to do this, but it really doesn't matter to me. For if the word B*llsh*t is directed to me, it says that my faith is B*llsh*t for she connects the two with what I *believe* and what I have been writing here. Sadly that I believe what I write? That could nmean that what Mr Hsiung is allowed to stand "reflects the posting policies here." andthat it is sad that I do not adopt his thinking.
> > Lou
>
> So you've really been waiting almost 8 years for a reply from this "Mr Hsiung"? And your anger has actually been burning for almost 8 years because you have yet to receive a response? I find that incredible.
>
> Perhaps there's a deputy moderator around here, someone >>>>"temporarily"<<< in charge who could finally resolve this outstanding issue for you.schleprock,
The fire of hate is in the posts that the links here show concerning hatred to the Jews, not my anger for them to be allowed to stand. Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post that could start a forest fire. But it is 8 years and I have aske him to appoint a special moderator in his behalf to post what could show that the forum's administration considers the antisemitic statems uncivil. I have asked for other remedies also.
The posts are just a sample of posts thatdefame he Jews that are allowed to stand here. The posts unsanctioned states that they are supportive a per Mr Hsiung's TOS here as that support takes precedence. That means there is no rationale acceptable to allow an antisemitic statement to stand. So since they do stand, people could think that hatred toward the Jews is supportive here.
This is a forum of hate as long as Mr Hsiung allows those kinds of statements to stand. And it is a greater shame that members in mass to this day have not posted in the threads where those posts appear
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 17:46:06
It's not that I don't have hope in the future. It's that I try not to have hope in certain situations or people to behave any differently than they have shown themselves to behave.
My hopes might be based more on having a community somewhere that I might be a part of, or that Babble will remain as nice an unmoderated board as an unmoderated board can be. My hopes for the future might involve reminding myself that I can post here as long as I like, but if I stop liking it, I can stop posting. It might even be that thank heavens this didn't happen back when I was in more turmoil in therapy or struggling more over medications. It might just be to remind myself that while I'm totally impotent at Babble, and unable to help people in any real way, I'm not impotently stuck at Babble. Unlike middle school, I can leave.
I rarely have hopes of Dr. Bob. If you see me getting really upset about Babble, it likely means I had a few moments of hope in its founder.
Posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 18:08:02
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
We actually have many of the same hopes. Most of mine are fairly modest and cautious.
Posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
I don't know Lou's DX but this excessive religiosity can be a symptom of serious mental illness. If that's true then we are witnessing an individual, for a decade, live in a world of pain and constantly being misunderstood.
Lou will be here long after I'm gone but I just feel I'm dealing with someone in turmoil and there's nothing anyone can do.
I would hate to see anyone trapped in a world that separated them from people that would do anything to help.
Tomorrow it will start all over again and instead of getting help, it just seems to me that Lou has to fight the battle that isn't originating here but possibly is fed and nourished by his own disease. I find that heartbreaking. (I'm not playing dr, just saying something that originates in my heart.) More than anything, God wants us to be happy. life is short.)
Posted by phidippus on October 26, 2012, at 19:34:59
In reply to Let us not ridicule the person., posted by SLS on October 26, 2012, at 0:03:05
Who the hell is Lou Pilder?
Eric
Posted by Phillipa on October 26, 2012, at 20:44:40
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
Phil any ideas how we can get Lou help? Phillipa
Posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 22:55:45
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » SLS, posted by phidippus on October 26, 2012, at 19:34:59
> Who the hell is Lou Pilder?
>
> EricLou Pilder = "Red Pill"
Posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 23:57:30
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Phil, posted by Phillipa on October 26, 2012, at 20:44:40
> Phil any ideas how we can get Lou help? Phillipa
Nope.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2012, at 2:16:15
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
> I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
Ding ding ding ding! Phil FTW!
My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts. Whether I acted on something at his request or on my own based on my independent reaction to something, it almost always resulted in multiple additional requests for action on past issues or on issues I'd declined to address on way or another. And as a volunteer here, I had the right to decline for any reason. Many times I declined because I didn't feel I had an adequate understanding or context about what Lou thought was uncivil to make a thoughtful decision. My recollection, which is not 100% accurate, I'm sure, is that this caution on my part was never satisfactory. And god forbid I actually disagreed with his interpretation. That was usually met with multiple, and I mean many multiple replies with increasing justifications and demands. After a number of these interactions, based on the language used, which at times took on a legalistic tone, I began to believe that this escalation could go as high as some kind of lawsuit. No volunteer could be expected to put up with that unsupported.
So it's not just the time it takes to address all of Lou's notifications, though that itself is daunting.
And as I sit here feeling the need to defend myself again, I realize that I'm reacting to that same dance. And I don't have to. And I know it's not helping Lou. Just wanted to add some context to the crap stream that the "man behind the curtain" may be experiencing.
gg
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2012, at 7:09:02
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Phil, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2012, at 2:16:15
> > I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
> My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts.I sometimes wonder in what ways Dr. Bob might be influenced to no longer block people from posting. Perhaps there is a man behind the curtain to the man behind the curtain.
I'm just musing. Obviously, something changed the behavior of the moderator. I am interested to know what that was.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 9:11:41
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person., posted by SLS on October 27, 2012, at 7:09:02
> > > I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
>
> > My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts.
>
> I sometimes wonder in what ways Dr. Bob might be influenced to no longer block people from posting. Perhaps there is a man behind the curtain to the man behind the curtain.
>
> I'm just musing. Obviously, something changed the behavior of the moderator. I am interested to know what that was.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote the above.
Now it is plainly visible to me what is goin' on here. Others may or may not see it. In order to understand what is plainly visible to me there could be a better understnding of how Mr Hsiung and his deputies can minipulate the member's thinking here by controlling the content and establishing what is supportive. This does not need a mastermind to do, for there are historical parallels that are available to those that read philosophical writings from Jean Jacques Rouseau, Nietsche, Voltair, Mussolini and his followers that added hatred toward the Jews as part of fascism from 1922.
Now one of the tactics to minipulate the thinking of members of a community is to repress the speech of those that see through the indoctrination and establishing attempted by the leader and his constintuency. And the historical record shows how those aginst the indoctrination were allowed to be targets of hate to be harmed and killed by the ones that went along with the indoctrination and establishment. This allowing , as you understand, happened in Kristallnacht and pogroms and he crusades and the Spainish inquesition and goes on today in communities that allow antisemitic statements or anti-Islamic statements or rascism to stand.
I am the opposition to Mr Hsiung and his deputies and other members that support Mr Hsiung's allowing antisemitic and anti-Islamic and other anti statments to stand. It is obvious that Mr Hsiung , who calls me the Prince of Death, which is a perversion of The Prince of Peace, that he wants to (redacted by respondent)me so that (redcted by respondent). So by him and his deputies allowing hate to be posted about me here and lies to be posted about me here, and defamation and slander and statements that then the result could be great emotional/psychological harm done to me here by him allowing the open hatred to be posted here that could arouse antisemitic feelings toward me here, and could then result in antisemitic violence being perpetrated toward me to ruin me so that I can not oppose the hate being promulgated here against Jews and me as a Jew.
Now here is a post that I would like for you to examine. Notice that my requests to Mr Hsiung are outstanding. And notice that members have not in mass posted from their perspective concerning the hatred toward Jews and others in the post being allowed to stand. Mr Hsiung admits that without sanctioning a post that harm could happen to the people that the post is directed to and are the subjects of the content. In the post in the following link, the Jews and anyone else that does not accept Jesus as Lord , are the subject persons and the post states that since those that did not convert to Chrisiandom, miss out on Eternal Life and forgivenesss. That post insults Judaism, Islam and other faiths. It dehumanizes Jews and Islamic people and the ohers. It is a crime againbst humanity to be allowed to stand in a mental health forum in particular. But Mr Hsiung is a psychiatrist and knows what can or can not cause emotional harm. And to this day, the fire of hate that Mr Hsiung states he will not wait to sanction because one match could cause a forest fire, is still burning. Burning against the Jews, Burning against Islamic people, burning against humanity itself. It is a crime against humanity and it is being allowed to flame the forest and stoke the furnace of hate.
And as long as the members here allow it to burn, the harm that Mr Hsiung says that could happen, will happen, as the spread of hate goes out to schools, universities, and other communities.
You can repress my speech here, you can post hate about me and slander me and ridicule me an taunt me and bully me and accuse me of whatever you want, but as the Sun comes out of the East and goes to the West, so shall I conquer the hate here single-handedly if I have to.
Here is the link tha states that the Jewish children murdered by antisemites can not have Eternal Life or forgiveness from God, and that the murderers of those Jewish children do have forgiveness and Eternal Life if they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. And this is a mental health forum for support. Support for what?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1017615.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 10:16:06
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
> I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
> I don't know Lou's DX but this excessive religiosity can be a symptom of serious mental illness. If that's true then we are witnessing an individual, for a decade, live in a world of pain and constantly being misunderstood.
> Lou will be here long after I'm gone but I just feel I'm dealing with someone in turmoil and there's nothing anyone can do.
> I would hate to see anyone trapped in a world that separated them from people that would do anything to help.
> Tomorrow it will start all over again and instead of getting help, it just seems to me that Lou has to fight the battle that isn't originating here but possibly is fed and nourished by his own disease. I find that heartbreaking. (I'm not playing dr, just saying something that originates in my heart.) More than anything, God wants us to be happy. life is short.)Phil,
Please do not post statements that could arouse ill-will toward me here and allude to the lie that a Jew could have serious mental illness because he is religious. What I am attempting to do here is bring the good news that could free the captives of depression and addiction. This does contain the foudation of Judaism which Mr Hsiung has posted to me a prohibition that prevents me from posting such. It is a lie that my perspective to do so constitute excesssive religiosity. What you have posted could arouse hatred toward me, and hatred toward me aa a Jew.
Your "Dr Bob" allows you to do this to me here knowing that these type of statements contradict his own TOS here to be sensitive to the feelings of others. Doing so becuase he allows this to continue, and has not responded to my notifications to him, does not annul the fact that harm could come to me from what you have posted about me and others could post more of the same about me here. If that is what this community considers to be supportive, then harming others emotionally and psychologically is supportive here.
What I want to post here but am prohibited from doing, could lead people to be free from depression and addiction and have life and life more abundantly. That is supportive in any mental health community and it is a lie that it could be a symptom of serious mental illnesss. Please do not post lies about the Jews that want to help people be healed here and say the lie that he has a disease that nourishes his attempts for people to be healed of depression and addiction, for it is against the Jewish commitment to humanity, which is anti-Judaism.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 11:36:09
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Phil, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2012, at 2:16:15
> > I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
>
> Ding ding ding ding! Phil FTW!
>
> My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts. Whether I acted on something at his request or on my own based on my independent reaction to something, it almost always resulted in multiple additional requests for action on past issues or on issues I'd declined to address on way or another. And as a volunteer here, I had the right to decline for any reason. Many times I declined because I didn't feel I had an adequate understanding or context about what Lou thought was uncivil to make a thoughtful decision. My recollection, which is not 100% accurate, I'm sure, is that this caution on my part was never satisfactory. And god forbid I actually disagreed with his interpretation. That was usually met with multiple, and I mean many multiple replies with increasing justifications and demands. After a number of these interactions, based on the language used, which at times took on a legalistic tone, I began to believe that this escalation could go as high as some kind of lawsuit. No volunteer could be expected to put up with that unsupported.
>
> So it's not just the time it takes to address all of Lou's notifications, though that itself is daunting.
>
> And as I sit here feeling the need to defend myself again, I realize that I'm reacting to that same dance. And I don't have to. And I know it's not helping Lou. Just wanted to add some context to the crap stream that the "man behind the curtain" may be experiencing.
>
> gg
>gg,
Please do not post what could constitute defamtion toward me by you. There is a doctrin called {false light} that you are putting me in here with your posting about me as putting me in a false light. I followed the administraive policies in all the communications with you and the other deputies and Mr Hsiung. You admit that you did not accomodate my requests to you as it being {your right to decline}.
You may or may not have had that right. For just that Mr Hsiung stated that you could decline, that does not annul the fact that declining to respond could have the potential to leave statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings and could cause harm to a Jew or me as a Jew.
Now there is a prohibition to me here by Mr Hsiung that I can not post a link to these posts in question. This denys me any right for members here to hear my side of what you posted about me that I think puts me in a {false light}. This could arouse ill-will toward me here and advance the allowing of the other posts that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the lies about me that could do harm. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to post what is confrontational even though his own rules prohibit such.
Lou
Posted by Willful on October 27, 2012, at 11:37:01
In reply to Lou's response-ahntgdzm » Phil, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 10:16:06
Phil was saying not that Lou's mental illness is a result of his being religious, but that his religiousity was a result of his mental illness.
He wasn't speaking of Jews, but of Lou. Lou is not 'Jews", and in many respects, he is not pure and simple a Jew. Lou is Lou. When I say that Lou is mentally ill-- if I say it-- I don't say that a Jew is mentally ill. His being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Even if his illness relates to religiosity, curiously, it has nothing to do with his being Jewish
This is true because his Jewishness is caught up by this illness-- it is not causal or even crucial to the illness. It may make the illness more pernicious-- and more inflammatory-- I doubt we would be so disturbed if Lou were saying that postings on the board made him check his stove 100 times before he left the house. So his saying that there are nameless posts, or that any criticism of him is anti-semitic and tends to whatever the most extreme results of anti-semiticism could be, does arouse a lot of disruption. But the Jewish aspect is far from the root cause. One might say it is the rhetorical or symbolic container for his illness, but as such, is divorced from Jewishness itself.
If I won't eat, it's not because I'm Jewish; it's because I have problems that have nothing to do with Jewishness. If I"m obsessed by the persecution of Jews in the early 1900's, it has nothing to do with my Jewishness per se-- it simply is an outgrowth of some obsessivenss that has selected Jewishness as it object. (It may locate you in relation to the persecution-- as a victim of it-- but amounts to that.) (I add, just for the record, that I am Jewish.)
Being Jewish doesn't mean that everything about you is defined by your Jewishness. Many aspects of your self are simply human, and shared with every other human on the planet-- in one variety or aspect or another. And your being Jewish is in some sense incidental to your general humanity.
So let's dispense once and for all with any pretense that Jewishness or anti-semiticism is more than peripherally involved in anything we're saying about Lou, or that Lou really cares about. It's just a vehicle for talking about what Lou cares about, a very effective vehicle, that gets a lot of attention.
Lou is more interested in persecution than he is in Jewishness. I have always assumed that --anyway. We all know Lou suffers from some very serious mental illness-- at least I have always assumed that we all know that-- except for newcomers on the board who are assaulted by Lou and then don't know why or what to think.
We shouldn't kid ourselves about this. What we have here is someone who has a sense of persecution, and who is in full bloom of spreading this poison through this board, because he is unable to contain it himself. And his claims about Jewishness are a way at best of expressing the pressing sense of this poison, and of making us all (and himself) drink a whole lot of it.
I don't know what can be done about Lou, because he simply is using us as instruments of his own craziness. His persecution and rescue phantasies have nothing to do with any of us or what we're doing-- yet they waylay us, drive newcomers from the board, and sow a lot of confusion and pain. Why do we (why does Bob) let this happen?
Is it helping (or supporting) Lou to let him carry out- and to reexperience this onslaught?
I surely don't see the kindness in letting him do this here to us and to himself. Apparently Bob thought that was kinder-- to Lou, and not detrimental enough to the community. At this point, I think the ratios have turned. But it remains, I guess, for Bob to be convinced--since he has the power to intervene, as he sees fit.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 13:53:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ahntgdzm, posted by Willful on October 27, 2012, at 11:37:01
> Phil was saying not that Lou's mental illness is a result of his being religious, but that his religiousity was a result of his mental illness.
>
> He wasn't speaking of Jews, but of Lou. Lou is not 'Jews", and in many respects, he is not pure and simple a Jew. Lou is Lou. When I say that Lou is mentally ill-- if I say it-- I don't say that a Jew is mentally ill. His being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Even if his illness relates to religiosity, curiously, it has nothing to do with his being Jewish
>
> This is true because his Jewishness is caught up by this illness-- it is not causal or even crucial to the illness. It may make the illness more pernicious-- and more inflammatory-- I doubt we would be so disturbed if Lou were saying that postings on the board made him check his stove 100 times before he left the house. So his saying that there are nameless posts, or that any criticism of him is anti-semitic and tends to whatever the most extreme results of anti-semiticism could be, does arouse a lot of disruption. But the Jewish aspect is far from the root cause. One might say it is the rhetorical or symbolic container for his illness, but as such, is divorced from Jewishness itself.
>
> If I won't eat, it's not because I'm Jewish; it's because I have problems that have nothing to do with Jewishness. If I"m obsessed by the persecution of Jews in the early 1900's, it has nothing to do with my Jewishness per se-- it simply is an outgrowth of some obsessivenss that has selected Jewishness as it object. (It may locate you in relation to the persecution-- as a victim of it-- but amounts to that.) (I add, just for the record, that I am Jewish.)
>
> Being Jewish doesn't mean that everything about you is defined by your Jewishness. Many aspects of your self are simply human, and shared with every other human on the planet-- in one variety or aspect or another. And your being Jewish is in some sense incidental to your general humanity.
>
> So let's dispense once and for all with any pretense that Jewishness or anti-semiticism is more than peripherally involved in anything we're saying about Lou, or that Lou really cares about. It's just a vehicle for talking about what Lou cares about, a very effective vehicle, that gets a lot of attention.
>
> Lou is more interested in persecution than he is in Jewishness. I have always assumed that --anyway. We all know Lou suffers from some very serious mental illness-- at least I have always assumed that we all know that-- except for newcomers on the board who are assaulted by Lou and then don't know why or what to think.
>
> We shouldn't kid ourselves about this. What we have here is someone who has a sense of persecution, and who is in full bloom of spreading this poison through this board, because he is unable to contain it himself. And his claims about Jewishness are a way at best of expressing the pressing sense of this poison, and of making us all (and himself) drink a whole lot of it.
>
> I don't know what can be done about Lou, because he simply is using us as instruments of his own craziness. His persecution and rescue phantasies have nothing to do with any of us or what we're doing-- yet they waylay us, drive newcomers from the board, and sow a lot of confusion and pain. Why do we (why does Bob) let this happen?
>
> Is it helping (or supporting) Lou to let him carry out- and to reexperience this onslaught?
>
> I surely don't see the kindness in letting him do this here to us and to himself. Apparently Bob thought that was kinder-- to Lou, and not detrimental enough to the community. At this point, I think the ratios have turned. But it remains, I guess, for Bob to be convinced--since he has the power to intervene, as he sees fit.
>W,
Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory and that you say that my religiosness is a result of such is debasing Judaism.The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory. Some think that all humans are mentally ill and others to the other extreme where a person commits mass-murder is mentally ill. You did not specify what your concept here is of mentally ill, except that my religiousness of Judaism is a result of what you purport as me being mentally ill. That you claasify me as mentally ill, and by what authority do you use, if any, to classify me or anyone else as mentally ill, please do not classify me at all. It is a lie that my religiousness is a result of "mental illness".
Your "Dr Bob" allows you to post here statements that are a disregard for my humanity and my faith by you claiming a lie that can cause me harm. But being allowed by him for you to post about me here does not ever ligitamize hateful statements toward me. If you think that calling someone here mentally ill and that their religiousness is a result of "mental illness" is supportive, then hate is supportive here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 14:47:20
In reply to Lou's response-moarheyt » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 13:53:08
> > Phil was saying not that Lou's mental illness is a result of his being religious, but that his religiousity was a result of his mental illness.
> >
> > He wasn't speaking of Jews, but of Lou. Lou is not 'Jews", and in many respects, he is not pure and simple a Jew. Lou is Lou. When I say that Lou is mentally ill-- if I say it-- I don't say that a Jew is mentally ill. His being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Even if his illness relates to religiosity, curiously, it has nothing to do with his being Jewish
> >
> > This is true because his Jewishness is caught up by this illness-- it is not causal or even crucial to the illness. It may make the illness more pernicious-- and more inflammatory-- I doubt we would be so disturbed if Lou were saying that postings on the board made him check his stove 100 times before he left the house. So his saying that there are nameless posts, or that any criticism of him is anti-semitic and tends to whatever the most extreme results of anti-semiticism could be, does arouse a lot of disruption. But the Jewish aspect is far from the root cause. One might say it is the rhetorical or symbolic container for his illness, but as such, is divorced from Jewishness itself.
> >
> > If I won't eat, it's not because I'm Jewish; it's because I have problems that have nothing to do with Jewishness. If I"m obsessed by the persecution of Jews in the early 1900's, it has nothing to do with my Jewishness per se-- it simply is an outgrowth of some obsessivenss that has selected Jewishness as it object. (It may locate you in relation to the persecution-- as a victim of it-- but amounts to that.) (I add, just for the record, that I am Jewish.)
> >
> > Being Jewish doesn't mean that everything about you is defined by your Jewishness. Many aspects of your self are simply human, and shared with every other human on the planet-- in one variety or aspect or another. And your being Jewish is in some sense incidental to your general humanity.
> >
> > So let's dispense once and for all with any pretense that Jewishness or anti-semiticism is more than peripherally involved in anything we're saying about Lou, or that Lou really cares about. It's just a vehicle for talking about what Lou cares about, a very effective vehicle, that gets a lot of attention.
> >
> > Lou is more interested in persecution than he is in Jewishness. I have always assumed that --anyway. We all know Lou suffers from some very serious mental illness-- at least I have always assumed that we all know that-- except for newcomers on the board who are assaulted by Lou and then don't know why or what to think.
> >
> > We shouldn't kid ourselves about this. What we have here is someone who has a sense of persecution, and who is in full bloom of spreading this poison through this board, because he is unable to contain it himself. And his claims about Jewishness are a way at best of expressing the pressing sense of this poison, and of making us all (and himself) drink a whole lot of it.
> >
> > I don't know what can be done about Lou, because he simply is using us as instruments of his own craziness. His persecution and rescue phantasies have nothing to do with any of us or what we're doing-- yet they waylay us, drive newcomers from the board, and sow a lot of confusion and pain. Why do we (why does Bob) let this happen?
> >
> > Is it helping (or supporting) Lou to let him carry out- and to reexperience this onslaught?
> >
> > I surely don't see the kindness in letting him do this here to us and to himself. Apparently Bob thought that was kinder-- to Lou, and not detrimental enough to the community. At this point, I think the ratios have turned. But it remains, I guess, for Bob to be convinced--since he has the power to intervene, as he sees fit.
> >
>
> W,
> Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory and that you say that my religiosness is a result of such is debasing Judaism.The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory. Some think that all humans are mentally ill and others to the other extreme where a person commits mass-murder is mentally ill. You did not specify what your concept here is of mentally ill, except that my religiousness of Judaism is a result of what you purport as me being mentally ill. That you claasify me as mentally ill, and by what authority do you use, if any, to classify me or anyone else as mentally ill, please do not classify me at all. It is a lie that my religiousness is a result of "mental illness".
> Your "Dr Bob" allows you to post here statements that are a disregard for my humanity and my faith by you claiming a lie that can cause me harm. But being allowed by him for you to post about me here does not ever ligitamize hateful statements toward me. If you think that calling someone here mentally ill and that their religiousness is a result of "mental illness" is supportive, then hate is supportive here.
> LouW,
You wrote that I have "rescue phantasies".
Your claim that my attempts to lead people to be free from depression and addiction is a thing called, "rescue phantasies", is a reckless disregard for the truth. This is all becuase this forum is for support and education. Granted, Mr Hsiung has posted prohibitions to me here that prevent me from posting from a Jewish perspective in regards to the foundation of Judaism that has been revealed to me that could open a whole new life to those enslaved by depresssion and addiction. But is not this is what the forum's goals are? And people here are denied my perspective, which is a Jewish perspective, so that knowing what I could tell them is suppressed by Mr Hsiung here. The supresssion of speech can lead to an indoctrination. And then an indoctrination can lead to an establishment of hatred towad Jews here because the Jewish perspective is made out here by Mr Hsiung to be unsupportive by the nature that it is sanctioned as uncivil by him and there is a prohibition to me here to prevent me from posting it.
Yet today, members can post the Chrstiandom perspective that says that people who reject Jesus can not have Eternal Life or forgiveness. This policy here by Mr Hsiung defames Jews and others. It is the foundation of hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and other faiths. It is insulting the very goals of this forum. It is direspectfull to humanity itself. And you say that you don't know what can be done about me? Is it that you want to stop me from freeing the captives from addiction and depression or stop me from stopping "Dr Bob" from allowing antisemitic statements to stand here? Or is it that you want to stop me from helping people to overcome and be freed from being scared of that they will get a life-ruining condition or death from mind-altering drugs that kill over 3500 people each month? If you think that the supression of the foundation of Judaism is supportive, and the allowing of the foundation of Christiandom that says that those that reject Jesus can not have Eternl Life or forgiveness from God, which is the foundation of hatred toward the Jews,then hatred toward the Jews is supportive here.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2012, at 15:56:38
In reply to Lou's response-moarheyt » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 13:53:08
Hi Lou.
> Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory
Mental illness is a very real human condition. I have a mental illness. Knowing this, what is there about me that would deserve a defamatory characterization by you? What did I do wrong? I would encourage you to not add to the stigmatization of mental illness by equating it with defamation.
> and that you say that my religiosness is a result
Religiosity is a clinical symptom of bipolar manic psychosis. It is not a judgment made upon the religion that the affected person practices.
> The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory.
The term "mental illness" may not be well defined or understood by much of the public. However, I would hope that your understanding of it were educated and enlightened, as you are a frequent visitor to a forum devoted to the phenomenology of these medical conditions. If I came to the conclusion that you were diabetic and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you? If I came to the conclusion that you were mentally ill and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you?
My saying that you are mentally ill would in no way represent some sort of accusation by me any more than would my saying that you had influenza. I do have some thoughts regarding your behaviors here on Psycho-Babble, but I am not convinced that it would be productive to divulge them at this juncture. My concern for your welfare is very real. If you were in the midst of a bipolar psychotic manic state, it is unlikely that you would recognize it as being such. It is likely, however, that you would reject any suggestions that you were indeed manic.
I don't know whether or not this applies to you, but:
I do not believe that anything I have written here will influence your thoughts and behaviors. I am hoping that it might influence others.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:27:32
In reply to Mental illness? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 27, 2012, at 15:56:38
> Hi Lou.
>
> > Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory
>
> Mental illness is a very real human condition. I have a mental illness. Knowing this, what is there about me that would deserve a defamatory characterization by you? What did I do wrong? I would encourage you to not add to the stigmatization of mental illness by equating it with defamation.
>
> > and that you say that my religiosness is a result
>
> Religiosity is a clinical symptom of bipolar manic psychosis. It is not a judgment made upon the religion that the affected person practices.
>
> > The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory.
>
> The term "mental illness" may not be well defined or understood by much of the public. However, I would hope that your understanding of it were educated and enlightened, as you are a frequent visitor to a forum devoted to the phenomenology of these medical conditions. If I came to the conclusion that you were diabetic and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you? If I came to the conclusion that you were mentally ill and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you?
>
> My saying that you are mentally ill would in no way represent some sort of accusation by me any more than would my saying that you had influenza. I do have some thoughts regarding your behaviors here on Psycho-Babble, but I am not convinced that it would be productive to divulge them at this juncture. My concern for your welfare is very real. If you were in the midst of a bipolar psychotic manic state, it is unlikely that you would recognize it as being such. It is likely, however, that you would reject any suggestions that you were indeed manic.
>
> I don't know whether or not this applies to you, but:
>
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&oq=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&gs_l=hp.3...1196.11065.0.11663.38.37.1.0.0.0.159.2680.34j3.37.0.les%3Befrsh..0.0...1.1.yWqizDyRoc0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=92da361fb107ce2f&bpcl=35466521&biw=1920&bih=910
>
> I do not believe that anything I have written here will influence your thoughts and behaviors. I am hoping that it might influence others.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
You wrote the above and asked how writing in a public venue that someone has a mental illness could be defamatory.
The laws of defamation have a section on making a false statement that could damage another's reputation. Liable is the term used when the defamtion is written as here as being published.
when someone is subjected to mental anguish, as I am here, the person is damaged by the mental anguish written toward them and published as in this forum.
Then a false statement that could produce mental anguish is like writing that a person has a sexually transmitted disease or a mental illness. This is in all states in the US except a few and Oh nd Ill are not in the five states. The writing that a person has a mental illness is called liable per se. There is no need to prove that the liable damaged the person.
Now then there are other aspects of defamtion that can offset the laible, such as if the statement is true. But in this case, the writer associates the mental illness with religiosness which gives it a different perspective as the recipiant (me) is complaining about antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and lies being posted about me here.
Now we are not talking abut a defamtion case, but only that as I understand it,in all states except 5, writing that a person has a mental illness is defamatory and liable per se.
There is a stigmatization involved and I agree. That is why I object to anyone here have it written that they have a mental illness, including myself. Someone could be going through a time of great distress such as a death in the family and such and be quite depressed. One could be givn a drug by a psychiarist that induced depression or mania or suicidal ideation. That does not mean that they are mentally ill and can be labled as such. That is why calling someone mentally ill can be defamatory.
Now Mr. Hsiung is allowing the defamation which is a separate topic, but is there not the question that by him allowing it, that he is encouraging it?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:57:32
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:27:32
> > Hi Lou.
> >
> > > Please do not post slanderous statements here about me. Your saying here that I have a mental illness is defamatory
> >
> > Mental illness is a very real human condition. I have a mental illness. Knowing this, what is there about me that would deserve a defamatory characterization by you? What did I do wrong? I would encourage you to not add to the stigmatization of mental illness by equating it with defamation.
> >
> > > and that you say that my religiosness is a result
> >
> > Religiosity is a clinical symptom of bipolar manic psychosis. It is not a judgment made upon the religion that the affected person practices.
> >
> > > The term, mental illness, is a vague term that can be defamatory.
> >
> > The term "mental illness" may not be well defined or understood by much of the public. However, I would hope that your understanding of it were educated and enlightened, as you are a frequent visitor to a forum devoted to the phenomenology of these medical conditions. If I came to the conclusion that you were diabetic and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you? If I came to the conclusion that you were mentally ill and verbalized my belief, in what way have I defamed you?
> >
> > My saying that you are mentally ill would in no way represent some sort of accusation by me any more than would my saying that you had influenza. I do have some thoughts regarding your behaviors here on Psycho-Babble, but I am not convinced that it would be productive to divulge them at this juncture. My concern for your welfare is very real. If you were in the midst of a bipolar psychotic manic state, it is unlikely that you would recognize it as being such. It is likely, however, that you would reject any suggestions that you were indeed manic.
> >
> > I don't know whether or not this applies to you, but:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&oq=manic+psychosis+symptoms+religiosity&gs_l=hp.3...1196.11065.0.11663.38.37.1.0.0.0.159.2680.34j3.37.0.les%3Befrsh..0.0...1.1.yWqizDyRoc0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=92da361fb107ce2f&bpcl=35466521&biw=1920&bih=910
> >
> > I do not believe that anything I have written here will influence your thoughts and behaviors. I am hoping that it might influence others.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> You wrote the above and asked how writing in a public venue that someone has a mental illness could be defamatory.
> The laws of defamation have a section on making a false statement that could damage another's reputation. Liable is the term used when the defamtion is written as here as being published.
> when someone is subjected to mental anguish, as I am here, the person is damaged by the mental anguish written toward them and published as in this forum.
> Then a false statement that could produce mental anguish is like writing that a person has a sexually transmitted disease or a mental illness. This is in all states in the US except a few and Oh nd Ill are not in the five states. The writing that a person has a mental illness is called liable per se. There is no need to prove that the liable damaged the person.
> Now then there are other aspects of defamtion that can offset the laible, such as if the statement is true. But in this case, the writer associates the mental illness with religiosness which gives it a different perspective as the recipiant (me) is complaining about antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and lies being posted about me here.
> Now we are not talking abut a defamtion case, but only that as I understand it,in all states except 5, writing that a person has a mental illness is defamatory and liable per se.
> There is a stigmatization involved and I agree. That is why I object to anyone here have it written that they have a mental illness, including myself. Someone could be going through a time of great distress such as a death in the family and such and be quite depressed. One could be givn a drug by a psychiarist that induced depression or mania or suicidal ideation. That does not mean that they are mentally ill and can be labled as such. That is why calling someone mentally ill can be defamatory.
> Now Mr. Hsiung is allowing the defamation which is a separate topic, but is there not the question that by him allowing it, that he is encouraging it?
>
> Lou
>
> Scott,
There are more aspects to defamtion involved in publishing that a person has a "mental illness". There is some cases that involve telling of someone's sexual problems or their mental problems that even if the statements are true, that does not protect them against the charge of defamtion. And there is what as known as {false light}, the putting a person in a disorted image and such to believe something that is damaging to them. And if the damage is emotional or psychological, there is another issue in defamtion. There is the concept of infliction of emotional distress be it intentional or not. The truth may not be a defence in some cases. Then there is neglegence and other concepts that could be involved in defamation.
My overiding concern here is the use of the phrase, "mental illness". I consider it to be defamatory here or anywhere else.
Lou
>
Posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:57:32
I know this is a little pointless since Lou's going to see it, but there's really no other way.
Lou is Don Quixote. He's not going to stop charging (on a white horse?) at windmills that he claims are giants. And when we prove to him that they are only windmills, he's always going to say that an Evil Enchanter (Dr. Bob?) transformed those giants at the last minute. Lou, in perhaps the definitive meaning of madness, will never admit he's crazy. The only way to help him is to play along with his ideas: villify Mr. Hsuing, admit the anti-semitism, listen to his tales of Melvin Chezdeik. There's a terminal point in Lou's mental illness (i.e. the revelation of the truth about mental illness from a Jewish perspective.) It's this that is driving him, and his perceived barriers to communicating these revelations are clearly exacerbating his condition. He's being crushed by this great burden, and perhaps the first step towards helping him is to relieve him of this. I have a strong feeling that once Lou feels comfortable enough to disclose this revelation, we might get a great deal of insight into his condition from its contents. It looks a lot like Lou's been going in circles for the past couple of years, and has literally been "doing the same thing and expecting different results." I think we have a very clear opportunity here to help Lou finally move on to some begin spending his time more beneficially.
So where do we begin?
Posted by Phillipa on October 27, 2012, at 21:36:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
By admitting we just might also be mentally ill? All degrees of it are present on this forum some more severe than others. Just like a 12 step program? It's a beginning? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 1:35:26
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2012, at 17:27:32
Lou, your above average intelligence is showing again.
:-)
I must say that your writings are more eloquent and cogent lately.
You obviously have studied some law.
Slander and libel are not easy to prove if one has offered an opinion rather than portrayed a statement as being fact. And, of course, any such statement must be proved false. Rightly or wrongly, I think your writings about your receiving divine revelations would make it particularly difficult for you to prove any falsehood in statements that call into question the status of your mental health.
I cannot determine whether or not you have a diagnosable mental illness. I am not trained to do this. However, I am often concerned about your mental health.
Regarding antisemitism and bigotry, I don't think you can construct a model whereby any comment suggesting that you are mentally ill is de facto an act of antisemitism. This is another issue that I believe would act as an obstacle to your winning any law suits.
I know that people who are intent on injuring Jews can be very clever with words. Such words can influence the beliefs and behaviors of others. Being Jewish myself, I am glad that there are people who stand as sentinels to guard against the emergence and persistence of antisemitism. There are still pockets of antisemitism in the US, such that I would fear for my safety were I to find myself surrounded by such hatred.
I am concerned that your ceaseless attempts to find antisemitism where it may not exist might actually have the unintended and undesirable effect of arousing antisemitic feelings.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 7:15:54
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se - I'm not sure, Lou. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 1:35:26
> Lou, your above average intelligence is showing again.
>
> :-)
>
> I must say that your writings are more eloquent and cogent lately.
>
> You obviously have studied some law.
>
> Slander and libel are not easy to prove if one has offered an opinion rather than portrayed a statement as being fact. And, of course, any such statement must be proved false. Rightly or wrongly, I think your writings about your receiving divine revelations would make it particularly difficult for you to prove any falsehood in statements that call into question the status of your mental health.
>
> I cannot determine whether or not you have a diagnosable mental illness. I am not trained to do this. However, I am often concerned about your mental health.
>
> Regarding antisemitism and bigotry, I don't think you can construct a model whereby any comment suggesting that you are mentally ill is de facto an act of antisemitism. This is another issue that I believe would act as an obstacle to your winning any law suits.
>
> I know that people who are intent on injuring Jews can be very clever with words. Such words can influence the beliefs and behaviors of others. Being Jewish myself, I am glad that there are people who stand as sentinels to guard against the emergence and persistence of antisemitism. There are still pockets of antisemitism in the US, such that I would fear for my safety were I to find myself surrounded by such hatred.
>
> I am concerned that your ceaseless attempts to find antisemitism where it may not exist might actually have the unintended and undesirable effect of arousing antisemitic feelings.
>
>
> - Scott
>Scott
You wrote the above,
Be advised that I am not in any litigation with anyone concerning a lawsuit about defamtion.
BUt note that saying what defames someone is an opinion and not fact is not always a defense in defamation. For instance, if one posted here, [...I think so and so is a pedophil, the aspect of the preface to the defamtion being that it is an opinion I do not think will be a defence. The same with saying that they think someone has a mental illness, or a sexually transmitted disease.
The question as to if someone has revelation from the God that they give service and worship to is a justification for them to claim that the person has a mental illness is depreciating the character and could be causing emotional pain to the person accused of being mentally ill. And if the claim is done deliberatly, that is even a greatr liable. And if it done maliciously, then that is even a more hatefull attempt to defame.
The aspect of looking for antisemitism is simply a lie. The antisemitism here is promuilgated by the fact that antisemitic statements are allowed toi stand. That means according to the rule-drafter here that what stands could be considerd to be supportive and going even further than that, the rule-drasfter here states that be doing uch, he will be doing what will be goo for this communnity as whole. So hatred toward the Jews will be good for tghis communit as a whole. Bur it is much more than that. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to me can not be posted by me here. This could be classified as what is known as {against Judaism} here. To see this post one can go to the search at the bottom of this page and put in:
[schleprock, Hello from 2012] {I am prohibited from posting a link here by Mr Hsiung that would bring that post up}.
Now the foundation of Christiandom that states that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children that were murdered by Jew-haters from an era of time that I am also prohibited by Mr Hsiung from postig about here, are said here to not being to have Etyernal Life or forgivnesss from God because they were Jewish children that had atrocities commited against them and were murdered and that the mureres who accepted Jesus have forgivness and Eternal Life. Then the poster states that the bible says that. Really? I have been revealed otherwise but I am prohibited by Mr Hsiung from posting what could show that the bible says differently by the nature of other prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung.
Now lets look at this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
In that post, the establishment for hatred toward the Jews is laid here. The rule-drfter had a rule in place before this post that stated not to post links to where ther is antisemitic content in it. Then here, the rule-drafter states that {he has been thinking} whatever that could mean. But he did not apply his own rule to this post. Nor is there any reply to me to my requests to him to have dialog with him. That indifference has great significance here to the Jews.
Now going on, the rule drafter or someone that has his pasword, deleted the original post that had the link to antisemitic content. This is significant here. The poster of the original link that created the rule to not post links to antisemitic content had originally posted antisemitic content directly to me and the rule drafter would not highlite {that particular} statement as being uncivil. So it could be an establishment here that antisemitic statements are supportive. And that I am what the poster claimed which was defamatory and came from historical antisemitism that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung. And for you to find that post, I am prohibited also from posting the link to it here by Mr Hsiung's prohibition to me.
Now it is plainly visible in the post here in the link and I am not looking for it. I am niot looking for Mr Hsiung to posdt to me his prohibitions caliming that if I post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that I will beguilty of not being in civic harmoiny here. That statement also can be (redacted by respondent) as in the historicsl record that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung.
Now antisemitism is defined as hatred toward the Jews. But it is much more than this. The charge of being mentally ill was made against Jesus of the bible that the Christians use. The courts understand slander of this manner more than you may think. And the truth of the sjander may not be a defence for what constitutes one being mentally ill? If revelation from God means one is mentally ill, then this Jesus was mentall ill. And then so were the Jews in their scriptures that had revelation from God. And then all the Islamic people and Hindus an others that have faith in God and have reveltion are also mentally ill. The judge might have had revelation from God. The jurors may have had revelation from God. There may be a psychiatrist that had revelation from God and testify that he is not mentally ill. You see how lableing someone mentall ill becuase they receive revelation from God could fall to deaf ears? Do you see how that lale could be defamatory to a Jew or others?
But ZMr Hsiung is allowing it here to be promulgated that others lable me as mentally ill. That is (redacted by respondent).
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 8:54:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-defamation per se-false ight, posted by schleprock on October 27, 2012, at 19:21:19
schleprock,
You wrote the above. Please do not post statements here that could lead people to think that you are saying that I am crazy or any sarcasm directed at me. Any statement that purports that by you is a lie. Please do not post lies about me here or sarcasm, for lies and sarcasm and hate are hand to hand partners.
Your "Dr Bob" is allowing you to post lies and sarcasm about me here but that does not annul the fact that posting such is defamatory to me and can cause emotional harm. Mr Hsiung is giving the forum's members day after day after day all the time they want to post statements that are lies about me that can cause harm to me. There is historical parallel to Mr. Hsiung's actions of allowing this type of hate/ridicule to be promulgated on a mental health forum toward someone that is trying to stop him from allowing antisemitic statements from being allowed to stand here. This may go on and on and on. But I say to you, that you and all the others that take advantage of Mr Hsiung allowing members to post hatred toward me here could find that what Mr Hsiung is allowing could be detrimental to the mental health of those members that do such. And Mr Hsiung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. Then posting defamtion/hate/sarcasm toward me will be good for this community as a whole?
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.