![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 130 to 154 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 25, 2002, at 11:29:30
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32
Thanks, Dr. Bob.
That's the sort of clarity (complete with examples) that makes posting a lot easier.
Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:32:30
In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » Dinah, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47
> Exactly why I said that a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) aren't discussed easily on a internet board. It soon ends up enbroiled in a mess. It'll either degenerate into a free-for-all, with poster attacking poster for what the other will consider "hogwash", or like here, so many rules & restrictions that what one sis trying to say becomes watered down.
I agree that it's not easy, but I don't think it's impossible. There may not be face-to-face feedback, but it may be possible to compensate for that by explicitly asking for feedback in words. "Was that clear?" "Did you feel put down by that?" Etc.
Watering things down has negative connotations, but sometimes people prefer them that way, for example:
http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/787
:-)
Bob
Posted by Dr.Eamerz on October 25, 2002, at 12:09:13
In reply to Re: discussion on a internet board, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:32:30
Hey Bob...that got a craving in the pit of my stomache but I'm firmly strapped to the wagon . Can't understand why anyone would spoil a Scotch by adding water and ice.Resume Administration....
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 13:21:56
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32
Dr. bob,
Are you saying that by me posting that my God told me tthat I should have no other Gods before Him, that I would be putting others down?
If so, could you clarify how, if possible, the statement by another poster:
[Jesus became our salvation to those that obey him]
as to why that statement is not restrained, and I will be restrained from posting the post of mine in question here?
I have examined your post about what is and what is not OK and I am asking you to clarify this question for I did not see a clear rational in your list that gives the other's post acceptance, and that you will restrain my post.
If you could give me your rational for the one being OK and the other not Ok, then I can examine it and see if your answer is acceptable in regards to it establishing two different standards for the acceptance of one and restraining the other.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 14:40:03
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that the primary goal of this site is to be supportive.
Are you saying that if I post that my God told me that I shall have no other Gods before me that you would deem that post to be (not) supportive? It is my understanding that the faith board was established by you to share what worked for us reletive to our faith. A reasonable person could conclude that you mean that they could tell of their experiance(es) with their faith that worked for them and that there could be the potential for their experiance that they are sharing to help others, which , to me, means support.
Then the other question I would have, if you are going to say that the post in question of mine here would be not-supportive, is then what is your rational for saying that the poster that said[Jesus became our salvation for those that Obey Him] would be supportive and my post not supportive? Or, better, what is your rational for being supportive? Is it that someone writes that they were able to sleep better for example after reading someone's post, or something like that? Or is it defined by the object associated with the word "support". To use the word "support", in my limited english language knowlege, means to me that something has to be supportED. To carry this to its logical path, are you saying that someone is non-supportive if they do not accept the post that Jesus became our salvation to those that Obey Him? I would like for you to clarify this so that I can have a better understanding of your rational that you use to determine if a post is suppotive or non-supportive so that I can post better to accomodate your rational. If you could clarify why one is supportive and the other will be non-supportive, then I could review your rational and determine if it arbitrary, or caprecious, or descriminatory and if so, we could have further discussion about your rational. As of now, it appears to me that the post that says that Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him is glaringly opposit to your principle of "support". For it has been your past-practice, as I have seen it, that this post about Jesus is disrespectfull to others because of the implication that the word "obey" is connected to Jesus and Jesus is stated to be "our salvation" and it could be easily construed to have the potential for a reasonable man, to think that they are being put down because they do not obey, or even believe in Jesus. I feel that there is much more potential for someone to feel disrepected after reading that post than if they read the post that I want to post.
Now I do not feel disrespected by the poster posting that her Jesus became her salvation for those that Obey Him. I kind of like that. For she is saying that her faith is good for her and thearfore has the potential for others to go out and find out about her Jesus and be saved by Obeying Him as she wrote. That would be wonderfulll and I would hope that others find the kind of help that she has had in her faith. I wish that evrybodty could have a wonderfull faith like she is desribing. I find no fault with Jesus. I am not telling others to be jewish, I am only telling my experiance here because since it worked for me, it has the potential to work for others. But others might not like to hear that. They could be easily offended. But isn't that the primary goal of the faith board, to tell of their faith so that others will have the potential to have what worked for them be shared, without the condemnation that if another believes something else that the teller of the faith experiance will be deemed by you to be disrespectfull?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on October 25, 2002, at 16:00:14
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32
Dr. Bob,
Since there are new posters to the board all the time, and since many might not read the admin board, and especially not the archives of the admin board, wouldn't it be a good idea to put the examples you used in your post on the FAQ with a link from the Faith Board? And also perhaps an explanation.
It seems only fair to give every potential poster a reasonable idea of what is expected.
Dinah
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 16:14:00
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 14:40:03
Lou,
I think I am understanding this now. I hope I can add some clarity.
You can talk about all your experiences, as long as you make it clear that these experiences are directed at you and no one else.
For example, to say "The Rider said YOU should only have one god.." would direct the comment at every reader.
But to say "the rider said, Lou, you should have no other god..." makes it clear that the comment is directed only at you.
I know that this means you won't be able to quote the Rider verbatum, but you will still be getting your message across.
I know some comments have slipped past by other people in the past, and I guess that these were mainly christian as I would guess the majority of people here will be christian.
I'm sure that Dr Bob will keep an eye on messages in the future to make sure these rules are adhered to by everyone.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 16:49:45
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32
Dr. Bob,
The post in question is as follows:
I was told by God that I shall have no other Gods before Him.
Now I have reviewed your outline of [in general, these would be OK and not OK]
After looking at these , I do not find a clear example that appraises the post in question OK or not OK. In fact, the ones that start off with "I feel", I do not know of any way that the implication, to me, by my God could apply in the case of the post that I want to post because it is not a case of "feelings" in my post.
The "I have one God and no others before Him does not apply, to me, in my experiance because I was told that I shall not have any Gods before Him. It is a [commandment]to me. "You shall not murder" is another [commandment] to me. You shall not commit adultery is another commandment made to me by my God. Are you saying that I can not post a commandment that I have from my God to me? I am not saying that those commandments are to be observed by others. They are made to me, just as the Christian poster is commanded to Obey Jesus in order to have salvation, as it appears to me in that post. I did not even say in my post that there were consequenses to not obeying. The Christian verse implies that if you do not Obey Jesus, you will not have salvation , for salvation is for those that Obey Jesus according to that post.
Then you post that the following is not OK:
[My faith says that I should have one God and no others before Him.] But you stated that it is OK to say:
[people of my faith have one God and no others before Him]. Could you point out to me the difference between the two in relation to why one is and the other is not OK. I am asking you because I do not see a great difference, and if ther is one, I would like to know it so I can further reserch your rational in the liturature of psychitry in order that I may be better able to communicate with you.
Now if you could clarify why I could not express the post as a commandment vs being acceptable to you as just a statement , then I could better communicate with you about this. Are you saying that it is the "shall" that I am restrained from posting? If so, then are you also saying that I could not post some or none of the following and if so could you clarify which that I could and which that I could not and state your rational for each so that I can examine the rational and further discuss this with you so that I could make my posts to accomodate your rational?
A).You [shall] love your neighbor as yourself
B).Unless your rightoiusness exceedes the rightiousness of the most rightious Rabbis, you [shall] not enter the Kingdom of God.
C)Blessed are they that mourn, for they [shall] be comforted
D)Blessed are the meek, for they [shall] inherit the earth
E)Blessed are the merciful, for they [shall] obtain mercy
F)Blessed are the pure in heart , for they [shall] see God
G)Blessed are the peacemakers, for they [shall] be called the children of God
H)Whosoever thearfore [shall] break one of the least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same [shall] be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.( this is a verse in the christian bible: book of Mathew)
Dr. Bob, my faith is about commandments. Are you saying that if I share my faith here that that would be some type of thing that would be "unsupportive" because commandments are involved in my faith? Are you saying that it is wrong for others to have my God as their God because there are commandments involved in my faith. Are you saying that your manual of psychiatry tells people that religions that have commandments are to be restrained? If so, could you site me the book that states this?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 25, 2002, at 16:00:14
> Since there are new posters to the board all the time, and since many might not read the admin board, and especially not the archives of the admin board, wouldn't it be a good idea to put the examples you used in your post on the FAQ with a link from the Faith Board?
Good idea, but how about if I just revise the introduction to PBF? Since it's not so applicable to the other boards? I've now made it:
> > The general rule is that it's OK to share what works for you, but not to pressure others to do the same or to put them down for doing something different. Where to draw the line is sometimes hard, but since this *first came up*, there's been discussion of *possible exceptions* and *specific examples*, and that may help a little.
What do you think? Those are *links* to posts here.
Bob
Posted by SandraDee on October 26, 2002, at 20:07:40
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2002, at 20:58:43
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
Friends,
The question asked by Dr. Bob is [what do you think concerning revision of the introduction to the faith board.?]
He then referrs to disussion of *possible exceptions* that may help a litte.
I am all for discussion that could lead to constructive change and clarification of any policys here.
For those that are new, the major discussion has centered around two posts here. One is going to be restrained if it is posted, the other has been posted without restraint. The restraint will be made on the grounds that the post will be deemed to either disrespect others, or put others down, or could also be deemed to pressure others.
The first post involves me, a jewish person, sharing my faith experiance as to what worked for me and I has been invited like the others here because the faith board was spacifically created for that purpose.
The other post, not that there are not other posts that could be also included in this discussion, is from a believer in Jesus and is also sharing her faith beleif here and has posted some very fundamental, strong, and foundational beliefs of those that believe in Jesus. It is apparent, to me at least, that the poster has great love for the others here as exemplfied in her other posts, and I am saying that so that you know that I believe, from the posts that she has posted in the last 10 months, that the poster is sincere and I beleive that she is a "true" believer and not in any way whatsoever posting to be disrespectfull to me, or put me down or pressure me to beleive in her Jesus.
But, also, I want you to know that I have been telling my faith experiance here for the same reason that I think that the poster of the other post is. I want to share with you my experiance because it gave me the power to overcome addiction and depression and thearfor it has the potential to help others. I suffer from the same affliction as the others here and I know about depression, mania, OCD, intrusive thoughts, paranioia, anger , rage, thoughts of suicide, fugue, delusions, hallucinations, agraphobia, acrophobia, hearing things, loss of appitite, sleeping disorders, and a lot of other mishagosh (yiddish).
The first post which is a post that I have said that I want to post in the tellng of my faith experiance here, is that I was told in a verbal exchange with the Rider, who is the word of God in my experiance, that [you shall have no other Gods before Me.] I have already revealed that the Rider is the Word of God and that it was revealed to me that in the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God. I also said that later the Word became flesh, but I have not got to the revelaing, to me, of what that meant , yet. I think that it is no mystery , here , as others have posted, that the phrase, [you shall have no other Gods before me], is the first commandment to the Israelites made by God to his people after he brought them out of slavery in Egypt. The movie,"The Ten Commandments" is pretty accurate in depicting the story of the Exodus of the jews from Egypt that occured around 3500 years ago. I am not saying that there are not posters here that are not aware of the fact that jews make one of the foundations of their faith to be the first commandment, which is the beleife in one God and that those that beleive in Him Shall Not Have any Other Gods Before Him. But then someone here may not be fimiliar with the Jesus that the other poster is describing either.
It is the part in the first commandment, that jews should have no other Gods before Him, that at least as I can see,as depicted by the discussion here and my request for clarification, and that there is a post actully stateing that it is the "imperitive" that will be used as the criteria for deeming the post to be restrained.
The second post in discussion is [Jesus became our salvation for those that obey Him]
I have objected, not to the post being unrestrained, but that my post will be restrained and this post has not been restrained. I have no qualms at all with anyone here posting anything about their faith. I am not asking for that post to be included in any restraint, but to have my post allowed. For if it is that a jew can not post here that they shall have no other Gods before Him, and then a Christian can post that Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him, then I feel that there is favortism made so that a jew can not post here, but a Christain can, in regads to their strong faith beleifs and so I feel that because I am a jew, I am not welcome here for I can not post the post in question, but the Christian poster can post the other post in question.
The issues are many-fold. The first issue is whether or not there are two different standards exibited here in relation to allowing one and not the other on the grounds that one or the other is disrespectfull to others, or puts others down, or pressures others.
It is my purpose to show that they either both do or both don't and I want to tell you why I think that they both do not, in any way, fall into any catagory that would cause restraint of either post.
First, they both are telling of their faith experiance. One, mine, is revealed to me by the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, the other is revealed to the poster by the written Word of God, for the post is a quote from the Christian bible about Jesus. I am mostly deaf and have a condition that is disableing and prevents me from reading and writing well. If you examine my previous posts, you will find atrocious spelling and grammer. I apologise for this and I am taking many hours to try to present this post that would take someone else without my affliction perhaps 20 minuets. The point in this is that my experance , as incredible as it appears, is real to me and I believe that a deaf person can hear the Word of God , for I did not read the bible to any extent before my experiance. I beleive that the Word of God can go to anyone, in some way, without regard of their religion, which means , to me, that not just this group or that group can know God. It is my beleif that the Word of God goes out to all people in some way, for I have heard it and I am mostly deaf.
Onr argument that I see that the administration is alluding to to justify their restraint of my post is that they say that [you shall have no other Gods before me] is unecessary. Then is it also not necessary that the other poster leave out [those that obey] in the post and have it read [and Jesus became our salvation to all]
You see, it is absolutly necessary that nothing be censored out of what I was told by the Rider any more than it is not absolutly necessary that the other poster leave out something in that post.
There is a quantum difference between [you are to have one God] and [one God and Shall have no other Gods before Me] And anyway, why would I be encouraged to ,what I consider to be a demand to me to lie about what my God told me in order to post wat I experianced? The other poster is not encouaged to lie about what her bible really says to her so that she can post that post.
Another argument by the administation alludes to that there could be a compromise. Compromises are possible in some situations ad some not. There was no compromise in the Boston Harbor disagreement. There was no compromise with slavery in this country after 1865. There was no compromise with segregation in the country after 1954. Rosa Parks did not compromise. And Jesus , the anointed one did not compromise and niether is my God compromising with me when He says to me that I shall have no other Gods before Him.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2002, at 21:42:41
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
Friends,
The administation suggests that I change what I was told by my God to some other statement that is somethong different that I heard and then I will be able to post it. Now if I did do that, then it would not be me that is talking, but the person that gave me the words to say.
I feel awfully humilated by that. I am not going to lie in order to post here or anyware else. If I was to do that, then I would be violating another commandment that my God has said that I shall not do.
It has been revealed to me by the Rider that the things that I had learned in my experiance I was to DO. And if I do them, then the God of peace shall be with me. The Rider said to me, "Whatever things are True, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, ...think upon those things and the God of peace shall be with you. I do not want to think upon what is a lie. I do not want to think upon what is dishonest, I do not want to think upon what is unjust. I want to think on those things that my God has said to me will bring me peace. Please do not make me have to choose to give up my peace in exchange to post here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 6:48:05
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
Friends,
Another issue involved in this discussion is that I had previously posted that the Rider said to me:
"Marvel not that I say to you ,you Must be born again".
But now it appears to me that the administration could, but not necessarily, include that post with[..only God and you shall have no other Gods before me], so it appears to me that my previous post would also constitute disrespcting others , putting down others, or pressuring others if we use the same rational that deems my post in question to be restrained. Now there was acceptance of the post saying that you must be born again, and in its context it meant that you must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.
Now since there is a change indicated to me in this, then it appears to me that the administraion could thearfor also deem many of the other posts of mine to also be restrined, but not necessarily, and could possibly be subject to deletion, although that has not been put forth by the administration here but I feel that it has the potential to happen.
The constitution of the United States prohibits the concept of what is called "Ex post Facto". which is Latin for "a thing done afteword".
www.law,cornell,edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
I am asking that none of the posts that I have already posted be deleted as a result of this discussion in advance and want to bring into this discussion the concept of "Ex Post Facto" only so that our discussion can be aware of this concept so that we can disscuss this better with each other. It is only the potential for the previous posts of mine to be deleted and there has been no indication to me that the administration would do that, but I just want us to be aware of this unconstutuional concept for there are going to be rule changes made for the administration has asked us in this thread for ideas and I am saying that any idea that is "Ex Post Facto", I would object to.
Lou
Posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 6:48:05
I can't imagine how the Constitution applies in this situation. If a company decides that certain pictures are inappropriate - perhaps it's a picture of a product they no longer produce - they have every right to remove the pictures that were previously appropriate but not now.
I'm not suggesting that any previous post be removed or should be removed. I'm simply saying that the Constitution would not prohibit such an action.
Posted by tina on October 27, 2002, at 10:24:10
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
sounds like just the thing doc. Sound proposal indeed!
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 12:22:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4), posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59
coral,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
Yes, I would agree with you that the situation that you describe does not apply to the U.S. Constitution. Howevr, the situation that I am discussing here is of a different nature in regards to the U.S. Constitution. For instance, could the company make a rule that says that an employee will be firerd if he comes to work with out a tie and then fire a man because he came to work without a tie last week?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 17:45:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4), posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59
coral,
The concept of "Ex Post Facto" goes into play in another way in this discussion. You see, Dr. Bob has answered one of my requests for clarification by listing posts that are OK or not OK. But the list was posted After the posts were made. So no one knew of the list untill after the fact.
Now a reaonable person could give credence that the list was made to allow one post to be OK and the other not OK, because the list was made by the person that wants to restrain my post, even though that fact can not be known at this time to be one way or the other. It could be known after more of the discussion is completed, though.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 22:54:32
In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35
Friends,
The two restraints , now, that are listed for the faith board is that you do not pressure others to do the same or put down others for doing something different. I have asked the administration to state their descriminating rational for restraining my post and and allowing the other post to be posted unrestrained and I have had no response .
This "stonewalls" me to discuss the issue at hand. Unless I know what their descrimatory rational is for allowing one and restraining the other, I would have to speculate as to what their reason is to do so. And I do not want to have to speculate in a discussion, particularly with the one that initiates the inviation to discuss.
I am asking that the moderator state the dscriminatory rational that says that my post will be restained and the other was not restained. If he could do that, then I could point out any arbitraryness, or capreciousness or any descriminatory aspect to the rational if it is seen.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
In reply to louelsa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 22:54:32
Lou,
NO ONE is discriminating against you.
I have, many time, pointe dout the differences between your post and the others you have bought up. They said "*I* believe xxx", you implied "*YOU* should believe xxx".
This has nothing to do with you being a jew. No one has said you can't continue recounting your experience and beliefs, people have just asked that you be more careful with your wording. I have given you many examples of how you could accomplish this.
being so accusatory to Dr Bob will also not help you in my opinion. He does a very tough job here, having to keep the masses happy and not just you.
Is the fact that I was offended by your ""Only a fool, in his heart, says that there is no God."
comment less valuable than the fact you have been offended by Dr Bobs subsequent actions??I fail to understand why you are still arguing the same argurment when this has already been pointe dout to you.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 7:24:39
In reply to Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
Nikki,
Sorrey, but I have not recieved an answer to my question to Dr. Bob to state his descrimintory rational for allowing[Jesus became my salvato to those that obey Him and then ,using that same rational to say that he will restrain me from posting[...one God.and that I shall have no other Gods before Him.]
theris no imploication that I am implying that othyers shall believe that they shall have no other Gods before them any more than tere is any implication that the other poster is implying that others should believe that[Jesus beacame our salvation to those that obey Him]
That is why I am asking Dr. Bob to state his descrimintory rational for this, if that is what he is saying. I want to hear Dr. Bob say that himself so that I we can discuss it here.
The imperitive to me is not , in anyway an imperitive t anyone else anymore that anyone's beliefe that in their heart that they beliee that there is no GOd is saying that I can not beliee in my God.
The one that stated theat Jesus became OUR salvtion to those that obey Him, carries an imperitve that says [OUR] salvtion. I am saying that my God says Me , not our, that I shall have no other Gods before me.
Without me being able to atate that the Rider told ME that, I am prohibited doing what the other poster can do, that is to say that Jesus became OUR salvation to those tht OBEY HIM, then I would like Dr. Bob to state his rational for such for if one is not OK thenthe other is not OK or both are OK. This is why I need t have Dr. Bob, not anyone else, post his rational so hat we can be accurate in this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:07:29
In reply to Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
Nikki,
It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
[The Rider said to me "I am your God amd you shall have no other Gods before me."]
The statement that has not been restrained, is:
[Jesus became our salvation to those that Obey Him]
I am asking for the desrimatory rational that says that my post will be restrained, and how the rational has not prohibbited the other to have been restrained.
Now if you are saying that my post is OK as you see it now, then Dr. Bob could have posted that and thee would be no discusson needed about this clarification that I am askng for. But that has never been stated, for Dr. Bob did state that It was the "imperitve" to me, and it it self-evident that all faith statements here are by the posters telling of Their faith experiance. If any statement here is implying that others must believe in their God, it is the one that says that [Jesus became OUR salvation to those that Obey Him]. This is why I am asking Dr. Bob to state his rational for descriminating between the two posts.
Someone also posted a post here that implied that the posters here would have to be treated as being of some very low degree of intellegence if I was requiered to say, [The Rider said to me, Lou,. ...]to have to post evry post of mine about the Rider. And anyway, if that is Dr. Bob's rational , then I am asking him to clarify it and this discussion could end. But that is not what has been said by Dr. Bob. He is now saying, by his new page for the faith board, that my post either says that I am putting down others or pressuring others. The other criteria has been deleted from his rules. I am asking fir him to state his rational that allows the one post and will be a restrainer of my post.
If you could explaine why you would not allow me to post:
[The Rider said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me] and the say that you would allow, [Jesua became our salvation to those that obey Him] ,then could you tell me why you would do that? My post is not telloing others to beleiev in my God, but the other post says"our" salvation which is ian implication.
If you could clarify this or me, I could have a better undestanding of your posts and we could communicate better in this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:25:06
In reply to Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
Nikki,
You say that I am not being told that I can not continue recounting your experiance and belief and that I could continue if I changed mt wording and there are examples given of the changes.
Nikki, I beleive that I do not have to say something that wasn't said to me. That would be quoting falsely. Are you are suggesting to me, in any way, to quote falsly in order to post here? If you are, then could you tell me why it would be allowable for the post [Jesus became our salvation to all those tha obey Him] to not also have the wording changed? If you could, then I would be better able to communicate with you in this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:18:32
In reply to Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
Nikki,
Could you examine the following so that we have a better understanding of the issue that is being discussed here? If you could, then I feel that I would be better able to communicate in his discusion with you.
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7721.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7724.html
It appears to me that I have explained quite clearly my objection to the attempt by the administration to restrain :
[The rider said to me,... your God .. and you shall have no ohter Gods before me]
It appears quite prominatly to me that Dr.Bob is restraing me from the part that [I shall have no other Gods before me]and not the part that says [..I am your God..]
Now if he wanted to clarify this by stateing that I could say:
[The rider said to me, I am your God and you shall not have any other Gods before me] to be OK, then that could have appeared in his list, made after the posts in question were made, or in my case, going to be made, but I did not see that. In fact, there is another post by him stateing to another poster that it is the "imperitive" that he is restraing, not the "one God" part of the post that I want to post.
Dr. Bob could end this discussion now by saying that I can post:
[The Rider said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me] and that would end this discussion.
That is why I am asking Dr. Bob to clarify this. For the poster that posted [Jesus became our salvation for those that obey Him]was not restrained to say the "our" or the "obey Him" part of that post and I am askingfor him to post his rational that descrimintes between the two posts so that I can better discuss it in this discussion. As of now, I do not know why that post is acceptable to him on this board and that my post is not. If Your thinking that it is because there is some implication that I am saying that others have to beleive in my God is the reason, and I have made it clear in many posts that there is no deand by me to have others accept my God,then would not the post that says that[Jesus became OUR salvation to THOSE that OBEY Him] be also included in Your percption? If not, could you explain and clarify this so that I could have a better understanding of your position and be better able to communicate with you in this discussion?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:35:11
In reply to Lou's question toDr. Bob » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 7:24:39
Nikki,
Could you examine the following post? If you could, I feel that we would be better able to communicate in this discussion for the ppost exibites that I have clarified and that I have been asking Dr. Bob for his clarification.
http://www. dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7741.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:38:38
In reply to Lou's question to Nikki's post (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:35:11
Nikki,
Below is the correcton to the link. Sorrry for the inconvienance,
Loi
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7741.html
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.