![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 58 to 82 of 110. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 20, 2012, at 11:25:58
In reply to Lou's reply-pharerhegng » Willful, posted by Lou PIlder on November 19, 2012, at 15:16:32
> > Lou
> >
> > You do not understand the concept of indoctrination. Indoctrination can only occur when the person (s) doing the indoctrination have sufficient status and control over the subject of indoctrination to be either:
> >
> > 1/ so highly respected and so powerful in the entire community that the person belongs to, that the indoctrinator's word or rules are totally in control of the person's thought process
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2/ in control of all access to other points of view. The indoctrinator has to be able to keep the subject from hearing or being in contact with any other means of learning about ideas or information contrary to that of the indoctrinator.
> >
> >
> > It is clear that Dr Bob has no such power over any of us. This website is not our only avenue to information or points of view. Dr. Bob is not a god, or political figure in the world. We all live in various communities where we have access to all sorts of information and ways of thinking that are completely opposed to or very different from Dr. Bob's.
> >
> > Therefore he has no way of indoctrinating us with any of his ideas or beliefs, or points of view. We are quite free to ask you for further information outside Babble if we want to, or to research anywhere the ideas that you do present. We can read Jewish doctrine, Jewish history, Jewish theology, your theology, your experiences and all sorts of other things.
> >
> > Therefore there is no indoctrination going on here. Dr. Bob can influence our behavior here, but but not anywhere else.
> >
> > So maybe you 'll have to find another explanation for what happens on this website.
>
> Willful,
> You wrote the above.
> Now wha may be unbeknownst to you and others could be in the following. I would like interested members to rerad what is in the link as to that Mr Hsiung has posted a prohibition to me that prevents me from posting here where people can find facts. Facts that IMHO copuld mark the difference between one being a live person or a corpe. Notice what is known as {far-reaching}.
> Lou
> To see this post,
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
> B. Type in:
> [babble,967306]
> if more than one post, look for the 967306 in the colored stripFriends,
The concept of indoctrination starts with one being in a group that is led by one or many that draft rules that the members of the group have to abide by while in the community under the leader's authority over them.
This could be a school or a religious group, or a political party or an internet mental-health support group like we have here or such.
Now in a public school, let's suppose the school leaders place a christmas tree in the main hallway and deny the Jews to place a menorah there. This is an example of an indoctrination being induced into the student body. The students go home and can do what they want about trees and menorahs. But while in the school, they could be swayed to think that the christmas tree is OK while the menorah is not. That thinking could go with some after school in particular that there could be students that are told that the school does what will be good for the school as a whole and to trust the school authorities in that. Then some students can believe that since it is good for the school it is also good outside the school because of the authority of the school leaders
Now here, the rule-drafter controls the content by allowing what can be posted as supportive, or not allowing what the rule-drafter states is not supportive. So the indoctrination happens by members being told what is or is not supportive while in the community. But some could go home like the students and take with them that what is supportive by the psychiatrist, like the school authorities, is also supportive outside the community as like being supoportive outside the school. This is just one type of indoctrination. Joseph Stalin indoctrinated the people by allowing hatred toward the Jews to be carried out in what is known as pogroms. There were poeple that did not participate, but the indoctrination allowed people under Stalin to kill Jews. The people that were indoctrinated were led to believe that they would be doing good for the country as a whole by killing Jews. This is one way how an indotrination is fosterd in a community, by appeasing the leaders hate, for Stalin said that he would appreciate it if his wishes were carried out.
Now here Mr Hsiung posts that he agrees with a member in that I have the title of {Prince of Death}. That could encourage some to go along with Mr Hsiung to "offset" me as Mr Hsiung posts about me here. Now the indoctrination has fuel to encourage others to "offset" me, whatever that could mean. And some could think that "offset" could mean what Mr Hsiung has not intended to mean, but I could be a victim of antisemitc violence by the members thinking something else other that what Mr Hsiung wants the word to mean.
I say to you that an indoctrination is when members are told by the leader what is or is not supportive and when the leader collaborates with members to encourage them to "offset" another member. And when Jews are allowed to be defamed by what is in the post in the link offered that has no sanction attached to it, then the indoctrination against Jews has the fuel to spread the fire of hate. And would you take the responsibility for the death of a Jew that was killed by someone that read the post in the link here and was indoctrinated to hate Jews and you did not rise up to protest the allowing of the post to stand?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 20, 2012, at 15:16:18
In reply to corrected link 2end attempt- Lou's reply-hahmahz, posted by Lou PIlder on November 18, 2012, at 15:50:08
> > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
> > > >
> > > > I believe a dictionary is handy at times but I digress.
> > > >
> > > > "The members here are indoctrinated by Mr Hsiung and his deputy.."
> > > >
> > > > I believe there is no evidence of this and that such statements are at the very least counterproductive and could be considered as defamatory. It's regrettable to say the least and I'm truly sorry you feel that way.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Robert Hsiung, M.D. is a health professional in private psychiatric practice who helps people with mental illnesses to recover as much as possible and thus be able to help themselves. He is a professional of high repute. That is definitely neither the attribute of nor the modus operandi of a cult leader, such as L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry you feel the way you do but I humbly ask that you please see things in perspective and seek psychiatric care if need be. This is only a suggestion and I'm sorry if you feel put down as that's not my intention.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Sukarno
> > >
> > > S,
> > > The members here are indoctrinated by the administration of the site that consists of Mr Hsiung and his deputy now and his past deputies. An indoctrination occurs in a group when the leaders, which could be a school or a government or a religious group or a socialist group or fascist gruop or such have the key which is that the group members are told what is or not and to try and trust what the leader and whoever he/she authorizes to carry out his/her wishes denotes as what is conducive to the civic harmony of the community/country/ party/school etc. etc.. In this grouop, the members are told what is civil, they are told what is supportive, and they are told what aspects of a faith is acceptable and what aspects of a faith is or is not to be considered supportive and/or civil. The members get a reward by accomodating the leader's thinking in relation to that he/she is doing what will be good for the community as a whole. The leader here states that he will appreciate members accepting what his thinking does here, so members could get an intrinsic reward by following his thinking, in particular but not limited to, his allowing antisemitic statements to stand, and ecouraging members to "offset" me, whatever that could mean.
> > > Then there is scapegoating being allowed here, which I object beyond (redacted by respondent) that fosters hatred toward me. And The administration can do that by allowing those type of statements to stand so that others could also post the same about me and post lies about me.
> > > But the indoctrination is much more than that. It comes from a psychiatrist that has a higher standard to uphold. And when I came to this forum I saw that Mr Hsiung was a psychiatrist and his TOS would protect me from being a victim of antisemitic violence, be it physical or the posting of emotional/psychological violence here allowed to stand that defames Jews.
> > > Here is a link to where Mr Hsiung even says that it is good that a member believes what has been used in the doctrine of {replacement theology} that has been used to foster hatred toward the Jews to ligitimize harming Jews.
> > > htp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html.
> > > Now the indoctrination is that Mr Hsiung says that it is good. This could lead some members to join the leader in his thinking and if they are in a mind-altered state from drugs that were given to them by a psychiatrist/doctor, there is a growing body of evidence to show that the drug could induce a mind-altered state for the taker of the drug to be compeled to commit murder, even mass-murder. And if it is instilled in their mind by reading that a psychiatrist thinks that it is good that a member believes what could be a statement that essentially says that Jews did not have grace or truth until Jesus came, which defames the Jews, then there is an indoctrination here, and they could target a Jew for murder
> > > I ask readers to see for themselves the tOS here by reading this link at the end where Mr Hsiung states that;
> > >
> > > ...I want to be open to feedback, but if you could also please try to accept what I decide and to trust that I am doing what will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.Thanks...
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > >
> > > When I came here and read that, I took him at his word.
> > > Then the indoctrination becomes policy. It becomes {established} by the following, it becomes {state-sponsored} :
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/949004.html
> > > Friends, you can think anyway you want. But in a community where there are poeple that can be swayed by the leader to accept his thinking, and he and his deputies control the content by allowing or not allowing, then you have an indoctrination and in this case, the indoctrination is allowing hatred to be posted toward the Jews to the point where it is allowed by Mr Hsiung to post what could be thought that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered by (redacted by respondent) can not have forgiveness or eternal life because they were Jews that have in their Faith a rejection of Christiandom's claim here posted, and the statement also could be thought that those murderers of innocent Jewish children have forgivness and eternal life because they accepted what the post purports as some Cristiandom groups say that their bible says. (does it)? The indoctrination is further infused by that the foundaton of Judaism as revealed to me is prohibitted by Mr Hsiung for me to post. So bothe sides now does not happen here, for it can't because the drafter of the rules has made it so. That is part of an indoctrination, my friends. There is much more to this and the furnace of hate can be stoked wherever these posts that defame dthe Jews that are allowed by Mr Hsiung to stand are read. No indoctrination? May the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob have mercy upon all of you that go along with the hate being allowed to be posted here.
> > > Lou
> >
> > corrected link:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/949004.html
>
> corrected 2end attempt
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.htmlS,
Now you say there is not an indoctrination here. An indoctrination can happen when the leader of a group will not allow members to know what is fact. The prohibition to the members here is done by repressing another member's efforts to educate and give support to other members by posting what could help others make a more-informed decision as to take mind-altering drugs or not. When the members are intentionally kept from knowing, that is part of the tactics of indoctrination. Here in this case, it is my great conviction that if the prohibition to me here by Mr Hsiung was not posted to me, that lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions could be avoided, addictions could be avoided and the murder of innocent people could be avoided.
Lou
to see this post:
A. Go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
[babble,1009990]
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 22, 2012, at 16:19:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hahmahz » Lou PIlder, posted by 10derheart on November 18, 2012, at 19:30:52
> I object.
>
> I never indoctrinated anyone here, Lou. It's patently absurd.
>
> I am sorry you think this and feel the need to make such uncivil statements.10,
Statements made here are what they are. And the antisemitic statements that are allowed to stand are considered to be civil here, for Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire.
Here is a link where Mr Hsiung makes it plainly visible what the position of the administration is concerning support taking precedence. And also, the post states that when one way is the only way to forgiveness and eternal life from God, then the people that have another way are put down. This means that a statement like that could be antisemitic and also anti others. This is the administrative rule here now, and has been
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.htmlNow if you were a deputy at that time or after, I would think that you knew the administrative policy in order to sanction posts that have an antisemitic statement in it.
That leads to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/949004.htmlWere you a deputy when that were posted?
Now the prohibition to me from Mr Hsiung.
To see this one go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in: [admin,7968]
Ths is the post where Mr Hsiung prohibits me from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me.
Lou
Posted by Willful on November 23, 2012, at 10:52:40
In reply to Lou's reply-ewknoh » 10derheart, posted by Lou PIlder on November 22, 2012, at 16:19:35
Has it ever occurred to you Lou that you are the only person posting anti-semitic posts any more? That in bringing up these long-forgotten incidents from the past, you are in effect keeping them alive, rather than letting them die an unmourned death?
Maybe if you stopped talking about them, their importance would be null and we could all continue to build a non-antisemitic present and future.
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 23, 2012, at 11:17:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-ewknoh, posted by Willful on November 23, 2012, at 10:52:40
> Has it ever occurred to you Lou that you are the only person posting anti-semitic posts any more? That in bringing up these long-forgotten incidents from the past, you are in effect keeping them alive, rather than letting them die an unmourned death?
>
> Maybe if you stopped talking about them, their importance would be null and we could all continue to build a non-antisemitic present and future.W,
The antisemitic posts are those that Mr Hsiung agrees could lead a Jew to feel put down. By that definition, antisemitic posts are seen now posted by others . The post with calling me The Prince of Death is an antsemitic post allowed to be considered civil and supportive here, for no sanction by the administration s seen, and support takes preedence in Mr Hsiung's thinking. And he has asked you to try to trusy him in what he does here.
I am not the Prine of Death and I trust the God that I give service and worship to that life takes precedence and that to save lives is supportive in any forum. The antisemitic posts here could be notated like other posts of that nature, but they are not. Those posts can be seen right now, right here in the present in the archives. If there were no archives, you would have a point. Yet today, people can see the posts in question and they could arouse antisemitic feelings as being considered supportive here. You see, people are brought to this site by a search often. And that search could bring up the posts in question so that they are seen in the present.
Do you have any idea how those posts could influence a middle school student to think about Jews when they are allowed to remain outstanding as being seen as supportive here? Do you realize that those posts could be seen by people all over the world that are bent on the destructiuon of Jews? Do you realize that some of the posts in question are also anti-Islamic? And also anti-other faiths and anti-atheistic?
What good for this community could those posts be to remain standing? If you want this to go away, could you post in the threads on the admin board now where I have outstanding requests to Mr Hsiung and then we could have dialog there?
Lou
Posted by Willful on November 23, 2012, at 11:33:28
In reply to Lou's reply-gauxehywehy » Willful, posted by Lou PIlder on November 23, 2012, at 11:17:35
I think you aren't getting my point, Lou.
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 23, 2012, at 11:35:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-donutgemap-wan, posted by Willful on November 23, 2012, at 11:33:28
> I think you aren't getting my point, Lou.
then go ahead and post more about your point to make it clearer...
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on November 23, 2012, at 11:57:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-donutgemap-wan » Willful, posted by Lou PIlder on November 23, 2012, at 11:35:03
Lou I understand that you feel ostricised by not having your posts answered I did a bit of googling on the history of antisemeticism. Is this how you feel? If so I hurt for you. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on November 24, 2012, at 13:44:37
In reply to Lou's reply-gauxehywehy » Willful, posted by Lou PIlder on November 23, 2012, at 11:17:35
> The antisemitic posts are those that Mr Hsiung agrees could lead a Jew to feel put down.
No. This does not follow from logic.
I am a Jew, and have had others' remarks lead me to feel put down. These remarks have not been antisemitic.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:40:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-gauxehywehy » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on November 24, 2012, at 13:44:37
> > The antisemitic posts are those that Mr Hsiung agrees could lead a Jew to feel put down.
>
> No. This does not follow from logic.
>
> I am a Jew, and have had others' remarks lead me to feel put down. These remarks have not been antisemitic.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you want to mean here. If you could view the posts in the following links, I intend to post more to your post and would like the content in the post read by you.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110321/msgs/952241.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:45:59
In reply to Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:40:51
> > > The antisemitic posts are those that Mr Hsiung agrees could lead a Jew to feel put down.
> >
> > No. This does not follow from logic.
> >
> > I am a Jew, and have had others' remarks lead me to feel put down. These remarks have not been antisemitic.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you want to mean here. If you could view the posts in the following links, I intend to post more to your post and would like the content in the post read by you.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110321/msgs/952241.html
>correction
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/952241,html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:49:32
In reply to correction- Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here, posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:45:59
> > > > The antisemitic posts are those that Mr Hsiung agrees could lead a Jew to feel put down.
> > >
> > > No. This does not follow from logic.
> > >
> > > I am a Jew, and have had others' remarks lead me to feel put down. These remarks have not been antisemitic.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you want to mean here. If you could view the posts in the following links, I intend to post more to your post and would like the content in the post read by you.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110321/msgs/952241.html
> >
>
> correction
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/952241,html
2correction:http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/952241.html
Posted by Willful on November 26, 2012, at 10:30:45
In reply to Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 24, 2012, at 16:40:51
Lou,
I'll respond with my logic about Scott's post, and the first of the posts that you cited.
1. Scott seems to be saying that you can be hurt by statements that are not anti-semitic, and be Jewish..
That is, not all statements that hurt someone Jewish are anti-semitic. Some are criticisms about other things.
Example: for example, a teacher could say a paper of mine wasn't good, when I was in school-- and I could have been hurt by it. That would be a hurtful statement, that has nothing to do with my being Jewish. ~~ Therefore it would not be anti-semitic. ~~
-~~Only if the statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-semitic. ~~
2. About the first link you gave:Bob is saying that anti-semitic posts will be treated in the same way that other uncivil posts are treated.
He's not saying that any post that's uncivil toward someone Jewish is therefore anti-semitic.
a. Anti-semitic posts are a class of uncivil posts;
b. Bob does not mean that all uncivil posts to any Jewish person are, by being to a Jewish person, anti-semitic.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2012, at 14:41:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here, posted by Willful on November 26, 2012, at 10:30:45
> Lou,
>
> I'll respond with my logic about Scott's post, and the first of the posts that you cited.
>
> 1. Scott seems to be saying that you can be hurt by statements that are not anti-semitic, and be Jewish..
>
> That is, not all statements that hurt someone Jewish are anti-semitic. Some are criticisms about other things.
>
> Example: for example, a teacher could say a paper of mine wasn't good, when I was in school-- and I could have been hurt by it. That would be a hurtful statement, that has nothing to do with my being Jewish. ~~ Therefore it would not be anti-semitic. ~~
>
> -~~Only if the statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-semitic. ~~
>
>
> 2. About the first link you gave:
>
> Bob is saying that anti-semitic posts will be treated in the same way that other uncivil posts are treated.
>
> He's not saying that any post that's uncivil toward someone Jewish is therefore anti-semitic.
>
> a. Anti-semitic posts are a class of uncivil posts;
>
> b. Bob does not mean that all uncivil posts to any Jewish person are, by being to a Jewish person, anti-semitic.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Willful,
There are many more definitions of antisemitism other than what Mr Hsiung has agreed upon here. There is also antisemitism as being policy in a group or country or community etc made by the leader, government laws, etc.
Here is an article that I would like interested discussants to read.
Lou
To see this article
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Definitions of Anti-Semitism, defantis]
usually first, but look for {defantis} if not first.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2012, at 14:41:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here, posted by Willful on November 26, 2012, at 10:30:45
> Lou,
>
> I'll respond with my logic about Scott's post, and the first of the posts that you cited.
>
> 1. Scott seems to be saying that you can be hurt by statements that are not anti-semitic, and be Jewish..
>
> That is, not all statements that hurt someone Jewish are anti-semitic. Some are criticisms about other things.
>
> Example: for example, a teacher could say a paper of mine wasn't good, when I was in school-- and I could have been hurt by it. That would be a hurtful statement, that has nothing to do with my being Jewish. ~~ Therefore it would not be anti-semitic. ~~
>
> -~~Only if the statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-semitic. ~~
>
>
> 2. About the first link you gave:
>
> Bob is saying that anti-semitic posts will be treated in the same way that other uncivil posts are treated.
>
> He's not saying that any post that's uncivil toward someone Jewish is therefore anti-semitic.
>
> a. Anti-semitic posts are a class of uncivil posts;
>
> b. Bob does not mean that all uncivil posts to any Jewish person are, by being to a Jewish person, anti-semitic.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Willful,
There are many more definitions of antisemitism other than what Mr Hsiung has agreed upon here. There is also antisemitism as being policy in a group or country or community etc made by the leader, government laws, etc.
Here is an article that I would like interested discussants to read.
Lou
To see this article
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Definitions of Anti-Semitism, defantis]
usually first, but look for {defantis} if not first.
Posted by Willful on November 27, 2012, at 9:55:09
In reply to Lou's reply-atisemitism in a community » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2012, at 14:41:28
True, there are many definitions of anti-semitism. But the issue was the definition that you're using and applying to babble, and how you think about it.
I may be wrong about Scott's viewpoint. Perhaps he'll address the issue at some other time.
But my point was, to what extent does YOUR definition focus on the idea that a negative comment about you or someone Jewish is about their Jewishness, as opposed to being a hurtful, or critical, or even unfair comment?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2012, at 15:37:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply anti-semitism in a community, posted by Willful on November 27, 2012, at 9:55:09
> True, there are many definitions of anti-semitism. But the issue was the definition that you're using and applying to babble, and how you think about it.
>
> I may be wrong about Scott's viewpoint. Perhaps he'll address the issue at some other time.
>
> But my point was, to what extent does YOUR definition focus on the idea that a negative comment about you or someone Jewish is about their Jewishness, as opposed to being a hurtful, or critical, or even unfair comment?Willfull,
The answer is that it depends. It depends on what's goin' on in relation to what is posted to me here. There can be a test to determine if the statement is antisemitic or just plain hate. If you could post a link to a post that is allowable here that you would like to be in discussion, I think that could be a way to explain such.
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 4, 2012, at 6:57:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here, posted by Willful on November 26, 2012, at 10:30:45
Hi Willful.
Yes. This is precisely the point I was trying to make. You explained it much better than I did.
- Scott---------------------------------
> I'll respond with my logic about Scott's post, and the first of the posts that you cited.
>
> 1. Scott seems to be saying that you can be hurt by statements that are not anti-semitic, and be Jewish..
>
> That is, not all statements that hurt someone Jewish are anti-semitic. Some are criticisms about other things.
>
> Example: for example, a teacher could say a paper of mine wasn't good, when I was in school-- and I could have been hurt by it. That would be a hurtful statement, that has nothing to do with my being Jewish. ~~ Therefore it would not be anti-semitic. ~~
>
> -~~Only if the statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-semitic. ~~
>
>
> 2. About the first link you gave:
>
> Bob is saying that anti-semitic posts will be treated in the same way that other uncivil posts are treated.
>
> He's not saying that any post that's uncivil toward someone Jewish is therefore anti-semitic.
>
> a. Anti-semitic posts are a class of uncivil posts;
>
> b. Bob does not mean that all uncivil posts to any Jewish person are, by being to a Jewish person, anti-semitic.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2012, at 20:54:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-atisemitism defined here, posted by Willful on November 26, 2012, at 10:30:45
> Lou,
>
> I'll respond with my logic about Scott's post, and the first of the posts that you cited.
>
> 1. Scott seems to be saying that you can be hurt by statements that are not anti-semitic, and be Jewish..
>
> That is, not all statements that hurt someone Jewish are anti-semitic. Some are criticisms about other things.
>
> Example: for example, a teacher could say a paper of mine wasn't good, when I was in school-- and I could have been hurt by it. That would be a hurtful statement, that has nothing to do with my being Jewish. ~~ Therefore it would not be anti-semitic. ~~
>
> -~~Only if the statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-semitic. ~~
>
>
> 2. About the first link you gave:
>
> Bob is saying that anti-semitic posts will be treated in the same way that other uncivil posts are treated.
>
> He's not saying that any post that's uncivil toward someone Jewish is therefore anti-semitic.
>
> a. Anti-semitic posts are a class of uncivil posts;
>
> b. Bob does not mean that all uncivil posts to any Jewish person are, by being to a Jewish person, anti-semitic.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Willful,
You wrote,
[...Only if a statement attacks Jews or Jewishness FOR their Jewishness, is it anti-Semitic...].
Let us look at this post, posted to me by Mr Hsiung. Does your criteria fit in the statement to me by Mr Hsiung as attacking my Jewishness? If not, and you can post your rationale for such, then I could respond to you.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the bottom of this page and type n the search box:
[admin,7968]
If more than one, look for the 7968 in the colored strip
Posted by AnnaKarenina on December 9, 2012, at 9:45:14
In reply to Dr Bob, ban Lou (yes, I'm pretty direct), posted by Phil on October 28, 2012, at 21:14:35
Sure don't want to get involved in that mess again--but when I left Babble in about '05, one important reason was that one person's post were proliferating, and weren't helpful or supportive to others but focused only on self. Again and again and again. Dr. Bob chose not to ban, for whatever reason, and I was too raw to ignore. Babble felt like a treasure, a home, I wanted to protect.
I've come back for the amazing knowledge here. Just to add .... there's nothing new in the current complaints and struggles, whether over this person or Civility, etc. --tho it appears Dr. B. has absconded! Temporarily?
There's nothing like this on the web. Hope the rumors of its demise are only that.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2012, at 17:18:50
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, ban Lou (yes, I'm pretty direct), posted by AnnaKarenina on December 9, 2012, at 9:45:14
> Sure don't want to get involved in that mess again--but when I left Babble in about '05, one important reason was that one person's post were proliferating, and weren't helpful or supportive to others but focused only on self. Again and again and again. Dr. Bob chose not to ban, for whatever reason, and I was too raw to ignore. Babble felt like a treasure, a home, I wanted to protect.
>
> I've come back for the amazing knowledge here. Just to add .... there's nothing new in the current complaints and struggles, whether over this person or Civility, etc. --tho it appears Dr. B. has absconded! Temporarily?
>
> There's nothing like this on the web. Hope the rumors of its demise are only that.A_K,
You used the subject line as ;
[...Dr Bob, (redacted by respondent) Lou...]
Now it is in the past practice here that if you use the same subject line from a previous post, that you agree with what that subject line wrote.
But there are some aspects here that could complicate this situation. First, Mr Hsiung is allowing the original poster of the subject line to post it without sanction. Thearfore, since he also states that support takes precedence, then one could think that the original subject line is supportive. That means that you could post it also as being supportive here since Mr Hsiung also states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
Now by Mr Hsiung allowing the statement in the subject line, others could think that he is encouraging members to defame me here, since the call for my expulsion could lead others to think of me in a false light and that I am causing some type of harm to the community which is nothing more that using me as a scapegoat, is is not?
But I am not harming anyone here, and in fact, there are others that recognise my work here as supportive to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions and lead people to a way out of depression and addiction.
There are parents looking in here to make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist. My work may be what you want to be disallowed, for you say that what I post {...wern't helpful or supportive to others...} and thearfore I should be expelled from the community.
But who are you to speak for all the mothers and fathers that read this site where mind-altering drugs that could cause death, cause suicidal thinking, could cause homocidal thinking, could cause addiction and a lifetime of sorrow from tardive dyskinesia, diabetes, depressioon and such. Could not them be supported by what I write? Let them read from me and you can ignore what I write if you like, you do not have to read what I post.
What I have been posting here comes from a Jewish perspective, which is prohibited by Mr Hsiung as that I am prohibited from posting here the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. But others can post the foundation of Christiandom as that Jews and all others that do not accept the claim of Christiandom that the poster says that the bible says, (does it?), will not have Eternal Life or forgiveness, because they did not accept Jesus. That means that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered by the (redacted by respondent) and has been declared a crime against humanity, will not have eternal life or forgivness from God because they were Jews that do not accept that claim of many Christiandom sects. Mr Hsiung states that it is OK to post that statement which can be found on the admin board with my outstanding request to Mr Hsiung as to if he thearfore considers the statement ot be supportive since he states that it is OK to post it here.
Now as for me being used as a scapegoat by you in that you wrote something that could be thought that,[...one important reason (you leaving in 05} was because of my posting here...], be advised that just because Mr Hsiung is allowing you to post such, that does not mean that it could not cause the deaths of others by others seeing me in a false light and discounting what I write by the defamation involved in the concept of scapegoating. Scapegoating is an unsoud mental-health practice that has resulted in the deaths of millions of inocent Jews and others. IMHO, it is in the top 10 worst things that one could post on a mental-health forum. I can not fathom how anyone could say that they left this forum because of me in any way. Your asking for Mr Hsiung to expel me from here has no basis for rationality, for the forum is for support and education which I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung that INHO could save lives if members here were allowed to know what I am prohibited from posting here.
You can post here for others to take drugs together that could cause death, but I can not post here what I thunk could give life and life more abumndantly. You can slander me here, but I say to you that not one stone that is thrown at me here will not return to those that throw those stones at me, in a way that I hope the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob forgives them, for they know not what they do.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on December 9, 2012, at 19:56:58
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, ban Lou (yes, I'm pretty direct), posted by AnnaKarenina on December 9, 2012, at 9:45:14
Sorry to say they are true about Bob not being here and also loss of Deputies. But are you serious the same was going on then? Wow sometimes things just don't change. Phillipa
Posted by larryhoover on December 27, 2012, at 10:35:34
In reply to Dr Bob, ban Lou (yes, I'm pretty direct), posted by Phil on October 28, 2012, at 21:14:35
Yes, Lou, I am purposely posting under this subject line. I left this place some time ago because Dr. Bob abdicated his responsibility to us all. Including you, Lou. You should have been banned long ago, and your return should have been conditional.
I am deeply offended, Lou, that when someone challenges you on other grounds, you try and turn it into an anti-Semitic argument. Playing that card is cheating, Lou. And you know it. I know you know it. As others have stated, ad nauseum, the only reason we know about any of the religious issues you are so offended by is that you constantly breathe them back to life.
Can you not grasp that there are dogmatic differences between the orthodox beliefs of different religions? And especially so when the different sects and historical documents associated with those human interpretations are taken into account? Psychobabble is incapable of fixing these issues for you. And yet, you generalize your impotent rage upon the entire population of Babble.
There are two threads here on the Admin page in which you have repeatedly insulted individual posters by calling them anti-Semitic. And those posters I know to be above reproach. That is so offensive, and so uncivil, you should be banned every time you say it. Every time.
When posters challenge you, Lou, these are the broad issues that I see them challenging. These are the "antis" they're posting about.
1. anti-bigotry (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"), or in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
Do not try and twist my words, Lou. This meaning, and this meaning only, am I expressing.
2. anti-ignorance (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a state defined by a lack of knowledge, education, or awareness").
Lou, your lack of knowledge of statistics, chemistry, biochemistry, and science in general, is appalling. And yet, you persist in trying to make pseudo-scientific arguments, despite extensive efforts by members of the Babble community to help you to understand your errors.
3. anti-illogical (defined by Merrian-Webster as "not observing the principals of logic"). I had to make up a descriptor, but more specifically, I am referring to arguments that are fallacious, inconsequent, or invalid.
There is no debating you, Lou. You simply restate your ill-reasoned beliefs. Or ignore the debate altogether.
But of all the things you do, Lou, playing an end around of the rules against posting links to specific websites, by creating google searches which will take an individual to those very sites, that is the most egregious violation of the rules here. People used to get banned in a flash for that. I got banned for linking to a site that I didn't even know had prohibited content on it. Twice. But you get away with intentional sh$t like that?
You should be banned, Lou. And not allowed to return unless you reform your ways.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2012, at 16:14:27
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, ban Lou (yes, I'm pretty direct), posted by larryhoover on December 27, 2012, at 10:35:34
> Yes, Lou, I am purposely posting under this subject line. I left this place some time ago because Dr. Bob abdicated his responsibility to us all. Including you, Lou. You should have been banned long ago, and your return should have been conditional.
>
> I am deeply offended, Lou, that when someone challenges you on other grounds, you try and turn it into an anti-Semitic argument. Playing that card is cheating, Lou. And you know it. I know you know it. As others have stated, ad nauseum, the only reason we know about any of the religious issues you are so offended by is that you constantly breathe them back to life.
>
> Can you not grasp that there are dogmatic differences between the orthodox beliefs of different religions? And especially so when the different sects and historical documents associated with those human interpretations are taken into account? Psychobabble is incapable of fixing these issues for you. And yet, you generalize your impotent rage upon the entire population of Babble.
>
> There are two threads here on the Admin page in which you have repeatedly insulted individual posters by calling them anti-Semitic. And those posters I know to be above reproach. That is so offensive, and so uncivil, you should be banned every time you say it. Every time.
>
> When posters challenge you, Lou, these are the broad issues that I see them challenging. These are the "antis" they're posting about.
>
> 1. anti-bigotry (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"), or in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
>
> Do not try and twist my words, Lou. This meaning, and this meaning only, am I expressing.
>
> 2. anti-ignorance (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a state defined by a lack of knowledge, education, or awareness").
>
> Lou, your lack of knowledge of statistics, chemistry, biochemistry, and science in general, is appalling. And yet, you persist in trying to make pseudo-scientific arguments, despite extensive efforts by members of the Babble community to help you to understand your errors.
>
> 3. anti-illogical (defined by Merrian-Webster as "not observing the principals of logic"). I had to make up a descriptor, but more specifically, I am referring to arguments that are fallacious, inconsequent, or invalid.
>
> There is no debating you, Lou. You simply restate your ill-reasoned beliefs. Or ignore the debate altogether.
>
> But of all the things you do, Lou, playing an end around of the rules against posting links to specific websites, by creating google searches which will take an individual to those very sites, that is the most egregious violation of the rules here. People used to get banned in a flash for that. I got banned for linking to a site that I didn't even know had prohibited content on it. Twice. But you get away with intentional sh$t like that?
>
> You should be banned, Lou. And not allowed to return unless you reform your ways.
>
> Lar
>
> Friends,
If you are following the ongoing situation here, be advised that I am trying to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions/addictions, save the lives of innocent people murdered by those in a mind-altered state induced by psychotropic drugs, and to stop the allowing of antisemitic statements to stand here. This is supportive on any forum unless what I am trying to stop is what the forum wants.
This brings up as to why there are numerous statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings allowed to stand here, and why there is a post to me by Mr Hsiung that prevents me from posting here the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. This also brings up as to what is the reason that others want for me to not post here as I do,to seek that the antisemitism is not allowed to stand and to post facts that I think could save lives. These facts are prohibited by Mr Hsiung to me to post here. These prohibitions are mainly only to me, for they are not in the TOS under the faq. And I am following those prohibitions even though Larry and others see that Mr Hsiung is allowing others to defame me here and use me as a scapegoat for their real or imagined ills or their leaving here.
If somone here does not want me to post what could save lives, or to try to stop antisemitism from being allowed to stand here, is that a rationale reason to leave a forum of any nature? Those wanting me banned for what I write here do not have to read what I post, for there are numerous other threads for them to be part of, or they could post a response of their own thinking.
And when one member posts defamation toward me here and stops, then comes another one just like the other one. And Mr Hsiung is not only allowing it, by the nature of him allowing it, others could think that it is supportive. Antisemitism supportive? Supportive of what? Defamation toward me supportive? All that it takes for antisemitism and defamation to stand is for good members to do nothing.
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 27, 2012, at 17:03:25
In reply to Lou's reply-dunuttin » larryhoover, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2012, at 16:14:27
> Those wanting me banned for what I write here do not have to read what I post,
So, you have now changed your posture towards allowing antisemitic posts? I can write one after another and have them be allowed to stand? This becomes acceptable to you now that you realize you don't need to read them?
I usually do not reply to your posts unless I feel they are endangering the welfare of others. I am here to save lives too, and I deem your posts to pose a threat to the health of those who would read them. That you are Jewish is incidental and irrelevant. It is unfortunate that you should feel the need to pronounce as antisemitic any act that confronts you and challenges your belief system. I find it very ugly.
- Scott
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.