![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
In reply to Lou's reply-psupoartkesprecedence » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2013, at 5:53:33
> I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
> I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 1:58:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
> That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
Posted by SLS on September 18, 2013, at 2:20:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 1:58:14
> > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.The Ph.D. in you is shining through.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 6:44:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 18, 2013, at 2:20:14
sigh. i wish. i wish i could remember where i read that...
;-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
> > I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
>
> > I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
>
> Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
>
> I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community...].
You say that it is acceptable for this to be said about me here, but not supportive.
It is not what a statement could mean that can not be seen that determines the acceptability here, but it is what can be seen that makes that determination. Readers can know it when it is seen, and not until it is seen can one know it, as you say in your TOS here.
What can be seen is what it is. And here the statement that I am [...challenging the health of this community...] can be seen as it is, for it is what it is. Now if you want to say that it could mean something else, so what? Here is your rule:
[...Please don't be sarcastic, treat injury or death lightly, suggest that others harm themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down---post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize--Even if you're quoting someone else...].
You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
Now looking at your own TOS here, one sees
[...please do not jump to conclusions...do not post anything that {could} lead one to feel accused or put down...].
Now you say that the statement could or could not be a bad thing. But it still {could} be either. And readers could see me in a false light when they perceive me in that I am challenging the health of this community and think in their mind the generally accepted meaning of that used historically and I could be blamed. This blaming of me is *not acceptable to me*, my friend, no matter how you want to pervert your own rules to accommodate this here. If this is acceptable by you, then anyone could post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down when your own rule says that can not post anything of that nature that {could} lead one to feel that.
You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power. You say that it may be good for you and the community as a whole for you to have the option to leave my requests outstanding. Now you say it may be that the poster of the statement in question meant something else other than what can be seen. He may also have not meant anything else other than what readers could think when the see the statement in question, and the rule is what {could} lead another to feel...
If this is allowed by you, then hate could be posted to abound here because you could say that the one that posted the hate could have meant something else.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 15:38:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
> > > I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
> >
> > > I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
> >
> > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> >
> > I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community...].
> You say that it is acceptable for this to be said about me here, but not supportive.
> It is not what a statement could mean that can not be seen that determines the acceptability here, but it is what can be seen that makes that determination. Readers can know it when it is seen, and not until it is seen can one know it, as you say in your TOS here.
> What can be seen is what it is. And here the statement that I am [...challenging the health of this community...] can be seen as it is, for it is what it is. Now if you want to say that it could mean something else, so what? Here is your rule:
> [...Please don't be sarcastic, treat injury or death lightly, suggest that others harm themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down---post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize--Even if you're quoting someone else...].
> You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
> Now looking at your own TOS here, one sees
> [...please do not jump to conclusions...do not post anything that {could} lead one to feel accused or put down...].
> Now you say that the statement could or could not be a bad thing. But it still {could} be either. And readers could see me in a false light when they perceive me in that I am challenging the health of this community and think in their mind the generally accepted meaning of that used historically and I could be blamed. This blaming of me is *not acceptable to me*, my friend, no matter how you want to pervert your own rules to accommodate this here. If this is acceptable by you, then anyone could post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down when your own rule says that can not post anything of that nature that {could} lead one to feel that.
> You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power. You say that it may be good for you and the community as a whole for you to have the option to leave my requests outstanding. Now you say it may be that the poster of the statement in question meant something else other than what can be seen. He may also have not meant anything else other than what readers could think when the see the statement in question, and the rule is what {could} lead another to feel...
> If this is allowed by you, then hate could be posted to abound here because you could say that the one that posted the hate could have meant something else.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
You say that it is acceptable {to you} for the statement in question to be posted here about me. And I say to you that by you allowing the statement to be considered to be acceptable, you could allow stigmatization of me to abound here. And you could allow scapegoating to abound here. And you could allow hate to abound here. And you could allow all other members now to post the same thing about me here, for theirs is the acceptance of the leader. Now all members can post not only that statement about me, but whatever is {analogous} to it by the nature that you say that statements that are analogous to an example of one of your rules are also the same as.
Now the statement says,[...Unfortunately, it only takes one member to...that could challenge the health of this community...]. It says {unfortunately}. This means that it could be bad for the community as to what I post here, and harm could come to it. And there is not a citation to substantiate the claim, so I can not respond to show the context of whatever is what I post that could cause harm to this community. And since there is not specified what I am posting, the posting in question could be from my postings from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, and that {could} be what the poster is using to blame me for the unfortunate consequences that the poster leads people to think that will come to them for allowing me to be a member here. That goes back to the ancient charge against the Jews of causing the Black Death that killed 1/2 of the European people in the 1300s. The hateful charge against the Jews blamed them that they poisoned the wells, but unbeknownst to the accusers of the Jews, the plague was caused a rat flea that carried the infection and bit the people.
The phrase is used to day to accuse people of challenging the health of the ocean community and the agricultural community. These accusers say that certain groups dump industrial waste and pesticides that challenge the health of the life of the agricultural and oceanic community. And maybe they do, but I say to you that my posting here is not polluting or dumping waste here. What I am posting could bring those seeking to have the liberty restored to them, and be made free from the shackles of addiction and depression, and to those that want a new life so that they can sing a new song, but have their liberty of knowing from me taken away from them when I am prohibited here from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And those prohibitions to me here can stop the liberty of those that see death knocking on their door, death from suicide, death from serotonin syndrome, death from heart failure, death from kidney failure, death from liver failure and death from blood disease and the combining of mind-altering drugs that are promoted here. I do not have the liberty to post here what I need to have those people in bondage to the drugs delivered from captivity that want a new life, free from being scared that the drugs will kill them. And I will continue to try to have the Light that is not allowed to be turned on here at least be known to readers that I know of a Light that could give one the liberty to be led out of the darkness of depression and addiction. And I will persevere even through the false charge against me of challenging the health of this community. For I will not be moved. I will not accept what is unacceptable. I will fight to the end. For I say to you, give me Liberty or give me death.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:44:06
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
> > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
>
> not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
>
> alexandra_kTrue. And that's an interesting analogy, since in some immune disorders the body attacks itself.
> > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community.
>
> You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
>
> You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power.
>
> Lou Pilder1. Yes, others could see you in a negative light. They might not feel up for a challenge. They might be looking for a refuge. They, like Phillipa, might worry that the community might be weakened or die.
And one part of the community might end up attacking another part of the community.
2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me. Whether I suppress their responses, whether I respond to your requests, etc. I imagine that could feel like a powerless, dependent position to be in.
--
I left out part of that quote before. More complete would be:
Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent communities? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:46
In reply to Re: challenges, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:44:06
> I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
Psycho-Babble has been excellent, may currently be excellent, and could be excellent again if it is not currently.
I consider Psycho-Babble and the people who post and lurk there valuable enough to continue to participate.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:48
In reply to Re: challenges, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:44:06
> > > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> >
> > not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> True. And that's an interesting analogy, since in some immune disorders the body attacks itself.
>
> > > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community.
> >
> > You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
> >
> > You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> 1. Yes, others could see you in a negative light. They might not feel up for a challenge. They might be looking for a refuge. They, like Phillipa, might worry that the community might be weakened or die.
>
> And one part of the community might end up attacking another part of the community.
>
> 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me. Whether I suppress their responses, whether I respond to your requests, etc. I imagine that could feel like a powerless, dependent position to be in.
>
> --
>
> I left out part of that quote before. More complete would be:
>
> Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent communities? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
>
> I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...how they see you is up to me...].
You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. You can do this by controlling as to what is supportive or not by allowing statements to stand or to sanction them, showing what is or is not supportive here, for you do not want a forest fire to start so you do not wait to put out a flame. And if the flame of hatred toward the Jews is allowed to be acceptable here, then the flame could burn all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder. You did after years attend to one of these type of statements that you allow to be considered supportive, but there are years of outstanding requests/notifications from me that still could spread hatred toward the Jews and others until they are also acted on by you.
You now say that you will allow statements that are not supportive but they are acceptable. That could mean that you just want the statement to stand and it is acceptable to yo, but not supportive. So now readers do not know if what is left to stand is either acceptable or supportive r something else.
I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else. Then readers could know if you are intentionally committing an act against your own terms of service that could injure others by you either disregarding your rules or not in a reckless or not manner. This then could also allow readers to know if you consider that Jews have equal protection of your rules here or not and if not, why they do not.
You say to not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. That is a good rule, for injury could occur to those that are accused of something that could damage their reputation and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against one. And if one is being used as a scapegoat, then many could attack the one being used as a scapegoat and the injury could be compounded. This could IMHHHO even induce a mob-mentality if it is allowed to be considered by you as acceptable but not supportive.
Here are the posts that I would like for you to label as either acceptable, or supportive or something else so that I can defend myself against the potential IMO of a mob-mentality being induced here by you that I think could happen if you do not accommodate my request here. If already responded to, please post the url showing that.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048566.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048575.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048641.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048705.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048712.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048715.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048717.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048883.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Then there are these that I also would like for you to post as to if you are designating that the statement in question is supportive, or just acceptable to post by you without being supportive,, even though there is the potential IMHO for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence by a subset of people that read these posts and think that what is in question is supportive and civil since they are allowed to stand, and the aspect that all Jews could be affected, not just me as a Jew here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042501.html
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 13:34:09
In reply to Lou's reply-ehyphoartaght » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:48
> And if the flame of hatred toward the Jews is allowed to be acceptable here
Perhaps the perceived hatred has nothing to do with being Jewish.
Perhaps there is no hatred at all.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:57
In reply to Lou's reply-ehyphoartaght » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:48
> > > > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> > >
> > > not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
> > >
> > > alexandra_k
> >
> > True. And that's an interesting analogy, since in some immune disorders the body attacks itself.
> >
> > > > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community.
> > >
> > > You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
> > >
> > > You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power.
> > >
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > 1. Yes, others could see you in a negative light. They might not feel up for a challenge. They might be looking for a refuge. They, like Phillipa, might worry that the community might be weakened or die.
> >
> > And one part of the community might end up attacking another part of the community.
> >
> > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me. Whether I suppress their responses, whether I respond to your requests, etc. I imagine that could feel like a powerless, dependent position to be in.
> >
> > --
> >
> > I left out part of that quote before. More complete would be:
> >
> > Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent communities? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
> >
> > I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...how they see you is up to me...].
> You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. You can do this by controlling as to what is supportive or not by allowing statements to stand or to sanction them, showing what is or is not supportive here, for you do not want a forest fire to start so you do not wait to put out a flame. And if the flame of hatred toward the Jews is allowed to be acceptable here, then the flame could burn all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder. You did after years attend to one of these type of statements that you allow to be considered supportive, but there are years of outstanding requests/notifications from me that still could spread hatred toward the Jews and others until they are also acted on by you.
> You now say that you will allow statements that are not supportive but they are acceptable. That could mean that you just want the statement to stand and it is acceptable to yo, but not supportive. So now readers do not know if what is left to stand is either acceptable or supportive r something else.
> I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else. Then readers could know if you are intentionally committing an act against your own terms of service that could injure others by you either disregarding your rules or not in a reckless or not manner. This then could also allow readers to know if you consider that Jews have equal protection of your rules here or not and if not, why they do not.
> You say to not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. That is a good rule, for injury could occur to those that are accused of something that could damage their reputation and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against one. And if one is being used as a scapegoat, then many could attack the one being used as a scapegoat and the injury could be compounded. This could IMHHHO even induce a mob-mentality if it is allowed to be considered by you as acceptable but not supportive.
> Here are the posts that I would like for you to label as either acceptable, or supportive or something else so that I can defend myself against the potential IMO of a mob-mentality being induced here by you that I think could happen if you do not accommodate my request here. If already responded to, please post the url showing that.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048566.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048575.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048641.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048705.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048712.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048715.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048717.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048883.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
> Then there are these that I also would like for you to post as to if you are designating that the statement in question is supportive, or just acceptable to post by you without being supportive,, even though there is the potential IMHO for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence by a subset of people that read these posts and think that what is in question is supportive and civil since they are allowed to stand, and the aspect that all Jews could be affected, not just me as a Jew here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042501.htmlFriends,
I am requesting that those that are considering being a discussant here to read the following article by Richard Koenigsberg. I think that it is time that all readers understand the ideology put forth here and how it could harm the Jewish people, and yourself if you do not understand it. So I am here to educate you so that you could have a more informed mind.
Now I have been posting about hate and how hate could prevent you from overcoming depression and addiction and how it could cause you to kill yourself and/or others and even commit mass-murder under the influence of mind-altering drugs taken in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor.
Now the issues here, if you remain ignorant about them, could IMO cause you to be swayed and steered in a direction that you may have no control of, due to ignorance of the issues. In reading the following, you could get information from a person with a doctorate in what you could read from him. I am asking that all of you take this opportunity to have a greater understanding of the issues here by reading the following.
To see the article:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Richard Koenigsberg,The Psychoanalysis of Culture, Body Politic]
This is usually first and to verify the correct one, it was posted on Oct 12 2004 and you will see the phrase {Body Politic} in the subject line.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 19, 2013, at 21:08:02
In reply to Hatred and Being Jewish., posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 13:34:09
Nothing to do with being Jewish as have many Jewish friends and this is in real life and have known none that feel threatened due to their religion. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
In reply to Lou's reply-ehyphoartaght » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:48
> > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
>
> You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
>
> I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 23:15:36
In reply to Re: Hatred and Being Jewish., posted by Phillipa on September 19, 2013, at 21:08:02
> Nothing to do with being Jewish as have many Jewish friends and this is in real life and have known none that feel threatened due to their religion. Phillipa
Hatred still exists around the world, and is propagated and nurtured through separation and propaganda. I would like to see connections made to antisemitism in the Psycho-Babble community, if there are any. Invisibility is a friend to persecution. I see no effort being made to uncover these connections.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 9:59:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
> > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> >
> > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> >
> > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
>
> What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
>
> Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
>
> I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-violence, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 9:59:33
> > > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> > >
> > > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> > >
> > > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
> >
> > What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
> >
> > Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
> >
> > I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
> There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.htmlMr Hsiung,
In regards to your request to me to furnish you links of post that you will examine, the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list. Here is the link to that post that you wanted identified by the link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.htmlNow that post has the following from me that has outstanding requests from me to you. If you could answer those, then I could choose another link for us to go on.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob./org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 19:01:44
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heyt, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
> > > > > 2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me.
> > > >
> > > > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> > > >
> > > > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
> > >
> > > What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
> > >
> > > Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
> > >
> > > I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > Here is one post , and a contained link to another post, that I would like for you to answer the requests from me to you in the post and its link to the other post. If you could, then I could use your replies to me to bring out the next one for your request for me to list the posts in question.
> > There are two issues here in this. One is that the threat of bodily harm is allowed to stand, and there is that the threat could be thought by a subset of people to be connected to my posting of the Jewish perspective that one can receive a new heart and a new spirit as in the scriptures that the Jews use.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049306.html
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In regards to your request to me to furnish you links of post that you will examine, the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list. Here is the link to that post that you wanted identified by the link.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> Now that post has the following from me that has outstanding requests from me to you. If you could answer those, then I could choose another link for us to go on.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob./org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.htmlcorrection:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044738.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:01:15
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heyt, posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2013, at 18:58:38
> the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.htmlI consider that OK. Yes, in #5 she only said "Christ", but in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 11:52:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:01:15
> > the following is one of those posts. The part involved is the second list in the post, entitled {..the top ten worst...}, and it is #5 in that list.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> I consider that OK. Yes, in #5 she only said "Christ", but in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that you consider the statement in question to be {OK}. That does not mean that it is supportive, but what you say is that {OK} means {acceptable}. If it is acceptable, that means that you consider it acceptable. It does not mean that others could think that it is not acceptable. This brings up as to what is the standard, if any, for a statement to be acceptable here. The standards could be understood by your terms of service as given in your FAQ, one which states:
[..do not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down...]and another is that you say that if there is a conflict between anything posted, that support takes precedence. Since you say that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to be posted anyway since you say it is acceptable, then my question still remains as to what is your rationale for allowing a statement that is not supportive to be considered to be acceptable by you here. Let's see what the statement could lead others to think. Here is the statement:top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Now "worst" literally means "bad". So there could be a subset of people that read the statement and could think that religions that foster any agendas that are not centered in Christ are bad. Or they could think that there is a ranking of religions and that those people that belong to religions that foster an agenda other than one that is centered in Christ are in a bad religion or are bad people, for they belong to a bad religion.
This could lead to a hostile environment here for Jews, people of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Taoism and all other religions that foster an agenda not centered in Christ, because you say it is acceptable to post the statement in question here, which insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that foster an agenda not centered in Christ. By you saying that the statement is acceptable, some could think that you are saying that hate is acceptable to be posted here, for it is allowed to be thought that religions other than those that foster agendas centered in Christ are bad religions or that those people that belong to such religions are bad people by the nature that it can be seen as supportive since the statement is allowed to stand and there is not a post by you in the thread where the statement appears where you say that the statement is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway as being acceptable.
Now if hate could be spawned by allowing the statement in question to stand as supportive, as that is how it can be seen now, could hate also be spawned here if you posted in that thread that you do not consider the statement to be supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway? I would like for you to post that there and then I will post my response to you there. You could also post your rationale for allowing it to stand as acceptable but not supportive and why you do not consider the statement to be an insult to Judaism and Islam and the others so that people can respond to you there unless you do consider the statement to be an insult to those faiths, in which you could post your rationale, if any, for allowing the insult to stand as acceptable.
In regards to you saying that the poster wrote in #7,
[To make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with Bible or other scripture]
I say, so what?
That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.
There are religions that make it up as they go along, but Judaism and Islam and others are fixed and do not make things up as they go along. And there are religions that have no concern for alignment with scripture, but that is not Judaism or Islam or others that adhere to their scripture's principles.
What could be thought by reading #7 is that since the poster says that she is a member of the Latter Day Saints, (LDS) sometimes called the Mormon Church, that they use the Bible and {other scriptures}. The other scriptures are books that Joseph Smith in the 18oo's claim were given to him from God and it is my understanding that the LDS say that those books supersede the Bible books, or they trump the Bible books. One is called the book of Mormon which is supposedly aligning the scriptures in the Bible by his further revelation from that book and others.
By you saying that the statement in question is acceptable to be posted here, then you also say that you take responsibility for what you post. I think that there is a subset of people that could have anti-Semitic feelings aroused in them when they read that post that you say is acceptable by you. And I think that they could have hatred induced in them when they read it because it could be thought to delegate Jews and others into a class of bad or worst or that Christianity is superior to Judaism or Islam and others faiths that foster an agenda not centered in Christ, and that you say it is acceptable to post here.
Those that could receive the inducement of hate that I think could be fostered here by you saying that the statement is acceptable, according to psychologists could transfer that hate to others, even themselves and/or others, even commit mass-murder. I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction, and I know that as long as people are steered to think that one religion has a higher ranking than all others, or that people are bad that belong to Judaism, Islam and other faiths that do not accept the claim in question that hatred could be induced into some that believe that to be true. And when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to? And where they find themselves by them allowing you and your previous deputies to steer them there, they could find one that says to them, "Judge not, for you will be judged."
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-judgnt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 11:52:16
> > in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
>
> I say, so what?
> That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.> "Judge not, for you will be judged."
It's a separate list, but I saw it as showing that she wasn't judging.
> I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction
> when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to?
It's a good question, how to steer people. I don't know if there's a simple answer.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 15:55:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
> > > in #7 she did say "the Bible or other scripture".
> >
> > I say, so what?
> > That is just another in the list by the poster that religions, according to the poster, are in the top 10 worst reasons for an organized religion. It is separate from {fostering any agenda that is not centered in Christ}.
>
> > "Judge not, for you will be judged."
>
> It's a separate list, but I saw it as showing that she wasn't judging.
>
> > I am trying to save lives here, and have people freed from the captivity of depression and addiction
>
> > when a psychiatrist says that it is acceptable to post that here, and all his previous deputies also allowed it also, then others could indeed be steered, but where to? Where are they being steered to?
>
> It's a good question, how to steer people. I don't know if there's a simple answer.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You say that it was a separate list and what you saw in her statement wasn't judging. I say, so what?
As to whatever you see in #7 is to if you are using whatever it is to legitimize insulting Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the other faiths that foster an agenda not centered on Christ, I have not seen anything that you have posted here that points that out. In fact the statement in #7, which says;
[To make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with Bible or other scripture]
is speaking of a separate reason for being a worst. If you do not think that is judging, that is not at issue here. What is at issue is that the standard here is not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused and that if there is conflict, support takes precedence. You say the statement is not supportive but you are going to allow it anyway on the basis that you say it is acceptable. And the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths. If that is so, then all members could continue to post not only that, but anything that is analogous to what the statement purports, for you now say that what is analogous is the same as.
But the statement could spark a fire that could cause a forest fire and you say that you do not wait to put that out. So the fire of hate can spread here since you will not put it out. I see no reason to say that what is not supportive is acceptable here because your terms of service state to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And when I joined here, I read that and took you at your word. Then go ahead and post in that thread that the statement is not supportive but you accept it to be posted anyway and give your rationale for allowing to be posted what is not supportive. Then I will post my response to you there.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
> legitimize insulting Judaism
I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
Tough call.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2013, at 10:58:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
> > legitimize insulting Judaism
>
> I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
>
> The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
>
> Tough call.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote that you are not insulted, but disagree.
People reading what is in question can both disagree and be insulted or feel insulted. What is an insult is what it is regardless if one disagrees with what the insult purports.
In this case, the agenda of Judaism is in the "worst", which is the superlative of "bad" . It is the most bad, the worst as the poster writes. That is acceptable here according to Mr Hsiung. It is not acceptable here to me, for I feel insulted when I read the statement in question. As a Jew, we think life takes precedence and that the agenda of Judaism is to bring life to the world forevermore. If that is the worst agenda, then (redacted b respondent).
To Life,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gauxahd » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 15:55:39
> the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 23, 2013, at 9:28:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
> > the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
>
> I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You have allowed what you admit could be seen as you wrote above.
The poster uses the word ,"worst". This can be thought by readers as that there is no other that is that bad. for insyance, how many toimes have you heard:
"That was the worst chili I have ever eaten"
"She was the worst teacher that I ever had"
"That team is the worst team in their division"
"He was the worst president of all"
" The Godzilla movies were the worst I have ever seen."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnZ6Ktjynh0
You see, readers can think from what is plainly visible as it is. I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
Lou Pilder
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.