![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 82 to 106 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2013, at 21:01:56
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung and readers,
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Can all posters post what is analogous that is in question here? (...I think Lou...should be...)
B. If so, and you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
C. Why is the statement in question,{I think Lou should be) a topic for discussion at all, if my reputation could be harmed and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings and opinions against me?
D. What benefit comes to this community by allowing that?
E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
G. There is the potential IMHO for a subset of readers to think when they read the post in question about me here that the posting behaviors by me are those that are of the nature of my efforts here to get the posts that I think could arouse, in particular but not limited to, anti-Semitic feelings, and could lead Jews to feel put down and/or accused, to be addressed by you along with the years of outstanding requests/notification from me to you be acted on.
Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
The potential of the post being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here, which could encourage others to post the same type of statements about me, I can see no benefit coming to me from that being allowed to continue at all. Who are the subset of people, if any, that you think will benefit by seeing the post about me as acceptable to be posted here which has the potential IMO to inflict psychological and emotional harm to me?
Lou Pilder
Posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
In reply to Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2013, at 4:13:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> I believe that you could revitalize the site
If a single person can revitalize the site, can a single person devitalize it?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 5:35:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)Pat,
You wrote,[...I have never seen a post that would be against your heritage or religion...]
Let us look at this post that Mr Hsiung says is OK to post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Now the post says that in the top 10 worst reason for organized religion as in #5 in the second list in the post, is a religion that fosters an agenda not centered in Christ.
Now That would include Judaism. And what could be thought here is that this community, by accepting that statement as acceptable to post here by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, Judaism, which includes me as a Jew, is a religion that is in the worst, and that those religions centered in Christ are not in the category of worst. So the thinking could be when readers see that post, that {only} the religion of Christiandom is exempt from being in the category of the "worst".
Now the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious agenda centered in Christ, and Buddhists and all other religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, to feel insulted when they read it, and that this community allows that statement to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, for the statement stands without sanction. And Mr. Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out a fire here for one match could start a forest fire.
The question by you is that you have never seen a post here that is against Judaism. The post in question states that there are religions that are the worst, and Judaism is included. But it is much more than that. The insult that relegates Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious ageda centered in Christ, and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, can be seen to be divided by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies that have allowed this statement for years, into two groups of members here. One group contains all those that have their religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ ,and the other group that are Christians. The community leader, Mr Hsiung, says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. So by allowing the statement to be seen s supportive, there is the potential for readers to think that Jews are to be considered by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, to be in the worst of religions, which includes this Jew here. By allowing the statement in question, all Jews an be seen here as in the worst religion. And all Islamic people also. And all Hindu people also. And all native Americans also that do not have their religion centered in Christ. And all people that are not members of Christiandom, for if they did have their agenda centered in Christ, they would be members of Christiandom.
The statement seen as supportive here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence of me as a Jew here and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against Jews and me as a Jew here. This could play out in using me as a scapegoat and I could become a victim of anti-Semitic violence as the historical record shows.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 19:23:57
In reply to Lou's reply- ewschd » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 5:35:40
> > Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> > I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> > Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> > I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> > You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> > I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> > Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> > I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> > I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> > There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
>
> Pat,
> You wrote,[...I have never seen a post that would be against your heritage or religion...]
> Let us look at this post that Mr Hsiung says is OK to post here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> Now the post says that in the top 10 worst reason for organized religion as in #5 in the second list in the post, is a religion that fosters an agenda not centered in Christ.
> Now That would include Judaism. And what could be thought here is that this community, by accepting that statement as acceptable to post here by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, Judaism, which includes me as a Jew, is a religion that is in the worst, and that those religions centered in Christ are not in the category of worst. So the thinking could be when readers see that post, that {only} the religion of Christiandom is exempt from being in the category of the "worst".
> Now the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious agenda centered in Christ, and Buddhists and all other religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, to feel insulted when they read it, and that this community allows that statement to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, for the statement stands without sanction. And Mr. Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out a fire here for one match could start a forest fire.
> The question by you is that you have never seen a post here that is against Judaism. The post in question states that there are religions that are the worst, and Judaism is included. But it is much more than that. The insult that relegates Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious ageda centered in Christ, and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, can be seen to be divided by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies that have allowed this statement for years, into two groups of members here. One group contains all those that have their religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ ,and the other group that are Christians. The community leader, Mr Hsiung, says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. So by allowing the statement to be seen s supportive, there is the potential for readers to think that Jews are to be considered by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, to be in the worst of religions, which includes this Jew here. By allowing the statement in question, all Jews an be seen here as in the worst religion. And all Islamic people also. And all Hindu people also. And all native Americans also that do not have their religion centered in Christ. And all people that are not members of Christiandom, for if they did have their agenda centered in Christ, they would be members of Christiandom.
> The statement seen as supportive here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence of me as a Jew here and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against Jews and me as a Jew here. This could play out in using me as a scapegoat and I could become a victim of anti-Semitic violence as the historical record shows.
> LouPat,
You wrote that you have never seen a post that...
Here is an assembly of posts that I would like for you to read.
Lou
To see the link, go to the search box at the bottom of the page and type in:
[ admin,1042501 ] and see the 1042501 in the colored strip, not the subject line.
Posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
In reply to Lou's reply- owebhulschd, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 19:23:57
Lou you and I have also emailed and you are always coherent and usually have a specific request for me to post a reply to a post of yours. But is it possible I have to wonder if you could brain wash me into being Anti Semetic with you constant it seems posting. Is it me or could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion? I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- owebhulschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
> B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
> E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
--
> Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
>
> Lou Pilder> I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
>
> PhillipaOne fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 15:12:40
In reply to Re: the fire of hate, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
> > B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
>
> The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
>
> > E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> > F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
>
> No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
>
> --
>
> > Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
> >
> > Phillipa
>
> One fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am asking that we continue our discussion here. I see that your post here is a response to a post by Phillipa. And yet, there is a citation of a post by me that comes from another thread..
My concern here is that since you cited my post, I would like to have the whole post addressed..
But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
Be advised that I do not think that your rules can be drafted to allow that here in many jurisdictions, even if it could lead to a discussion that could make a better rule. That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
I am afraid that your post to Phillipa could mislead people into thinking that statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews could have some protection from you by those statements being couched in a particular stratagem. I would like to clear this up, so here are the questions from me that I think if that you answered them, lives could be saved, Jews could have equal status here if the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings are addressed in our discussion. There has already been one fire stopped, and I want all of the flames of hate put out here, not just that one. The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning. And I see that some readers can see it as still hurning because it is left unsanctioned and readers could know that support takes precedence and they could think that it is supportive to have all religions considered to be in a category of the worst religions because their agenda is not centered in Christ, which make Christiandom the only religion that is not in the worst. You saying that another post by her is involved, but I see not, and that it does not annul the fact of what the statement in question purports, for the other statement is anther one of the top ten worst, so that statement is another question that could be addressed by you also if you post in the thread where the statements in question are..
But here is the post where I would like for you to answer now, so that any misunderstanding of your post to your response to Phillipa could have greater understanding.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051577.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
In reply to Re: the fire of hate, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
> > B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
>
> The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
>
> > E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> > F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
>
> No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
>
> --
>
> > Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
> >
> > Phillipa
>
> One fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Could {they} also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?...]
The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
It is plainly visible here that you have posted over and over that harm could come to one here when statements are posted that could lead one to feel accused and/or put down. But it is a greater (redacted by respondent) when one that has such rules and knows of the consequences to others that could happen to them when they are the subject of ridicule and contempt, to (redacted by respondent).
You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
>>I am not hypervigilant.
Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
> >>I am not hypervigilant.
>
> Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
>
> I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.10,
You wrote, [...are you introspective...].
I am unsure as to if what you have posted here is relevant to this discussion. If it is, what is the relevance?
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on October 5, 2013, at 13:04:22
In reply to Lou's reply-relvnz » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
Never mind, Lou. If you are asking me that, I don't think *my* further explanation would help.
IOW, your question may answer my question.
Anyway, glad to see you and Dr. Bob having a discussion.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
> But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
Yes, and yes.
> The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
--
> That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
--
> Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
Lou Pilder
To see this
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 20:18:33
In reply to Lou's reply- LDS-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
> > > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
> >
> > Yes, and yes.
> >
> > > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
> >
> > What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> >
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > --
> >
> > > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> >
> > > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> > >
> > > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
> >
> > That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
> >
> > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
> Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
> Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
> You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
> Lou Pilder
> To see this
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]Now the statement in #5 says that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is to have an agenda not centered in Christ.
If that is allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive, then all religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ (redacted by respondent).
I would like reads to see this: To see this, pull up Google and type in:
[The On Tr Church, Boyd K. Packer]
You will see his pic also in the url there is {general-conference}
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 7:19:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
> The post I wrote was intended to be a figure of speech reflecting my anger and frustration with your suggestion that you have a better idea of how I should treat my bipolar disorder than I do. Nonetheless, the way I expressed it was inappropriate and probably should have been sanctioned. I'm sorry Lou. It would be nice also if you felt some remorse for provoking me, but that's OK if you can't.
Toph,
You wrote,[...your suggestion that you have a better idea...].
I would like to have discussion with you concerning this, but I would need to know where that came from. If you could post a link to where I stated something that says that, then I could continue here...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 8:17:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You have posted a statement that could lead readers to think that I am the subject person since you did not specify a particular person which is generally accepted to be the kind of statement that could cause harm to any of the people what readers could think could be the ones in the category that you said. You used that these people could be hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. You may have had someone else in mind and if so you could have specified that person.
I feel humiliated because I think that some readers could think that it is me as your subject person that you use, hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive as descriptions of these people in question, of which I am one of those, and could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child and that they are self-destructive, irritable and hypervigilant. I see that your remarks here about victims or children or grandchildren of those, or others that had some relationship to them, leads me to feel humiliated and is a false statement about me because I could be seen as a subject person in what you wrote about these people and I am not hypervigilant, irritable or self-destructive. Those types of labels IMHO could induce hostile, disagreeable, and disparaging feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held which harms my reputation for it is a false statement against my character. I want that you remove the entire statement that you wrote that could be seen as me being the subject person, now.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 9:20:59
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- owebhulschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
> Lou you and I have also emailed and you are always coherent and usually have a specific request for me to post a reply to a post of yours. But is it possible I have to wonder if you could brain wash me into being Anti Semetic with you constant it seems posting. Is it me or could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion? I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...is it possible..that you could brain wash me into being Anti Semitic with you(r) constant..posting...could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion?...as a child someone said or did something to you...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by what you posted about me here. Be advised that what you have written about me here could IMHO induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. And much worse, I feel humiliated when I read what you have posted about me here for your statement about brain washing you into being anti-Semitic because I post here in your opinion constant.
Be advised, Phillipa, that I will not rest until ALL statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings are purged from these boards here. And I will continue in that endeavor as a poster here like everyone else by abiding by the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung. It took me years to get one of these addressed and it may take a constant attempting to have Mr. Hsiung respond to my years of outstanding notifications/requests. I am doing this and will continue to do this and if I am not able I will have an assignee to take my place and take this to its logical conclusion. If that is something that could cause you to be anti-Semitic, be advised that statements that could put down those of other faiths are not conducive to the civic harmony or welfare of this community, and even if they are allowed to stand for Mr Hsiung's purposes, those purposes of his will in no wise ever override my purpose to have the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings purged. For as one match could start a forest fire, the fire of hate can spread even if Mr Hsiung has that he will allow these type of statements to stand because he will benefit, or the community will benefit, by using that kind of statement to have better rules which I guess will be good for this community as a whole. That argument is centuries old and has been used to justify genocide, slavery, discrimination, infanticide, segregation and more. If Mr. Hsiung wants better rules he could do so without allowing what could put down or accuse another that could cause harm that could be forever more.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 6, 2013, at 20:16:05
In reply to Lou's reply- gauxphynd » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 9:20:59
Is life one big debate to you? A to me simple statements seems to be blown out of proportion. I feel not like answering you. And I will not feel like answering it either tomorrow the next day or the day after. After awhile we will be so old that we won't know how to access a computer if they still exist then. But who knows what the future holds? I sure don't do you? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
In reply to Lou's reply-dhephm-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 8:17:25
> > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 3:18:00
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
> > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You have posted what readers could think is about me as a subject person where you use [...self-destructive, irritable and hypervigilant] as descriptions which are derogatory descriptions to me as a person. I am not hypervigilant or irritable or self-destructive. Those terms against me could stigmatize me. Those terms against me could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
In regards to your use of hypervigilant, I am abiding by the prohibitions made to me here by you and understand your TOS that states:
[...do not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused...] and,[...do not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...] and,[...members are to be civil at all times...], and[...if it is not civil, don't post it...] and,[...please trust me in that I am doing what I think will be good for this community as a whole...].
But even if you in your thinking by allowing statements that could put down those of other faiths will be good for this community as a whole, that does not annul the fact that by you using these derogatory terms toward people that I could be one of, that harm could come to my reputation and character by readers seeing me portrayed as you describe as being hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. Those could be clinical terms against a person. I am not trying to harm myself and I am only trying to purge statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and purge statements that are insults to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as the post that can be seen here as civil and supportive since it is allowed to stand. I fail to see how that post being allowed to stand could be good for this community as a whole unless this community wants that to be promulgated as civil and supportive. But be it as it may be, the description of people in the post here of being hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive, IMHO could bring psychological/emotional harm to those that could think that they are in the category of people that you use those terms about them. So this is not a one-person issue and those terms that you use could be harmful to many people reading here that are Jews and remember. We will never forget. We will not allow you to use these terms against us as hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. I may be harmed by these terms, but I am not going to destruct myself over this. Instead, I will continue to attempt that you purge all of the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and other statements that could put down those of other faiths, for as long as they are allowed to stand, the fire of hate is still burning.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on October 7, 2013, at 6:54:35
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
I agree.
The first battle against the stigma residual in society regarding mental illness can begin with the mentally ill releasing themselves of the stigma residual within themselves.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 7, 2013, at 7:01:29
In reply to Lou's reply-nvrfrget » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 3:18:00
You said:
"I am not hypervigilant or irritable or self-destructive."
- Scott
Posted by Homelycygnet on October 7, 2013, at 7:58:13
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
I think this is inappropriate on your part. This slur by association tends to invalidate other people's experience by suggesting that it is caused by an illness or trauma. Would it be correct to interpret your overcontrolling and insensitive treatment of people here as resulting from PTSD because presumably your ancestors were raped in Nanking or worked to death on a railroad? I don't think so. Knock it off Bob.
> > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
>
> Bob
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.