![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 135 to 159 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:26
that should be "my"
Posted by Phillipa on October 9, 2013, at 20:55:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:26
I know how can one argue or discuss what one does not know or understand. I don't know your religion but it's yours and millions of others and it's fine with me. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 1:30:58
In reply to Lou's response-49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 ahdomoebeel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 13:39:47
> If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
>
> Lou Pilder> I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
>
> Dinah> if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
>
> LouI did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 6:06:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 1:30:58
> > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> >
> > Lou
>
> I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?Mr. Hsiung,
The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
[...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:17:26
> I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
>
> I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
[..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
In reply to Lou's reply-policeeofheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
This guy once bumped into me as I was crossing 33rd Street at 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Because I am Jewish, this act was certainly antisemitic. The perpetrator "could" have been intent on committing acts of violence against me and other Jews. This only follows from logic. That this guy had no idea that I was Jewish shall be disregarded, simply because he "could" have known this. Perhaps he was psychic.
Christendom is what it is. You may disagree with it, but for those who believe that its tenets are derived from the word of God, it is not very different from Judaism. What shall happen to uncircumcised males after their death?
----------------------------------------------
Genesis 17:9
"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
----------------------------------------------
This "could" be interpreted as such: Circumcision is of such importance that heaven and earth are held only by the fulfilment of that covenant.
As you can see, Judaism is not without its laws of discrimination regarding access to heaven.
You would argue that Christianity is not all-inclusive. I would argue that neither is Judiasm.
This is often the nature of religions - separation. I would suggest to you that the words you identify over and over again as being contrary to your belief system should be tolerated by you as others would tolerate your beliefs in God's intolerance of an uncircumcised penis.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:42:39
In reply to Lou's reply-policeeofheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
> > I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
> >
> > I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
> The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
> There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
> Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
> If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
> [..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
> Lou
>Dinah,
Now I would like to introduce the items in this link concerning what constitutes antisemitismto further our discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:48:05
In reply to Lou's reply-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:42:39
> > > I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
> > >
> > > I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.
> >
> > Dinah,
> > You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
> > The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
> > There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
> > Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
> > If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
> > [..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
> > Lou
> >
>
> Dinah,
> Now I would like to introduce the items in this link concerning what constitutes antisemitismto further our discussion.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.htmlFriends,
There is a prohibition to me here from Mr Hsiung that I am not permitted to post anything about the holocaust.
My apology, for I did not know that the post in the link contained a reference since it was made before the prohibition to me here by Mr Hsiung..
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 16:00:00
In reply to Psychics » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
> This guy once bumped into me as I was crossing 33rd Street at 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Because I am Jewish, this act was certainly antisemitic. The perpetrator "could" have been intent on committing acts of violence against me and other Jews. This only follows from logic. That this guy had no idea that I was Jewish shall be disregarded, simply because he "could" have known this. Perhaps he was psychic.
>
> Christendom is what it is. You may disagree with it, but for those who believe that its tenets are derived from the word of God, it is not very different from Judaism. What shall happen to uncircumcised males after their death?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Genesis 17:9
>
> "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> This "could" be interpreted as such: Circumcision is of such importance that heaven and earth are held only by the fulfilment of that covenant.
>
> As you can see, Judaism is not without its laws of discrimination regarding access to heaven.
>
> You would argue that Christianity is not all-inclusive. I would argue that neither is Judiasm.
>
> This is often the nature of religions - separation. I would suggest to you that the words you identify over and over again as being contrary to your belief system should be tolerated by you as others would tolerate your beliefs in God's intolerance of an uncircumcised penis.
>
>
> - Scott
>Friends,
It is written above by Scott.
Now the verse cited states that there would be a cutting off from their people. It did not say anything about heaven or hell or gehenna or hades or anything about the afterlife. The people would be cut off from his people, not heaven or anything about the afterlife. It goes on to say that those that do such are breaking the covenant.
Now I am prevented from posting here what I would need about the covenant to reply here due to prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung
But be it as it may be, circumcision is a symbolic act to be a sign of the covenant. It has to do with the shedding of blood. And if I was not prevented from posting here what I need to in order for readers to understand this, I could open your eyes to something that you may not understand. And the understanding could be great. SO great, that I think lives could be turned around from the darkness of depression and addiction to go to a marvelous light of peace and joy. Here is a link that could explain more about this situation that I find myself in here. Oh, the (redacted) of it all.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,7968] and look for the number in the colored strip, not the subject line.
Posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 16:47:13
In reply to Lou's response to Scott-bludofcvnant, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 16:00:00
> Now the verse cited states that there would be a cutting off from their people. It did not say anything about heaven or hell
If circumcised Jews are in Heaven, and uncircumcised individuals are cut off from these people, then the uncircumcised do not go to Heaven.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 18:55:34
In reply to Lou's apology, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:48:05
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 19:11:33
In reply to Psychics » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
> This is often the nature of religions - separation.
And maybe in the "religion" here, the sin is incivility and the uncivil are separated/cut off from the civil.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
In reply to Lou's reply-kowntrphit-The Hsiung-Pilder discusion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 6:06:42
> > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > >
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ faith,428781 ]
Lou PIlder
to
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:55:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-heytoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
> > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > >
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]
> Lou PIlder
> to
Mr Hsiung and readers,
Here is a link and the links in the post to what I think could help readers understand the situation that I find myself in here.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429340.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 18:26:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-dizckrmtoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:55:46
> > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinah
> > > >
> > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ faith,428781 ]
> > Lou PIlder
> > to
> Mr Hsiung and readers,
> Here is a link and the links in the post to what I think could help readers understand the situation that I find myself in here.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429340.htmlI apologize for what is contained in the post in the link for that was in 2004 and there are posted prohibitions to me here now from Mr Hsiung that could now encompass some of the statement in the link.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2013, at 22:52:52
In reply to Lou's aplogy, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 18:26:45
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]> I apologize for what is contained in the post in the link for that was in 2004 and there are posted prohibitions to me here now from Mr Hsiung that could now encompass some of the statement in the link.
Thanks, should we move on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-heytoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
> > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > >
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]
> Lou PIlder
> toMr. Hsiung,
Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:48:43
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
> > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinah
> > > >
> > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ faith,428781 ]
> > Lou PIlder
> > to
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
> You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Here are two posts for discussion. The posts have statements in them that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the posts can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you.
In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
The post is:
http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Then in this post, line #6 uses the word, {only} which precludes Jews and all other religions that have a different way than Christiandom. This could arouse hatred in particular but not limited toward the Jews.
The post is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:51:53
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-pstig/pstereo, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:48:43
> > > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dinah
> > > > >
> > > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > [ faith,428781 ]
> > > Lou PIlder
> > > to
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
> > You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here are two posts for discussion. The posts have statements in them that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the posts can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you.
> In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
> The post is:
> http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> Then in this post, line #6 uses the word, {only} which precludes Jews and all other religions that have a different way than Christiandom. This could arouse hatred in particular but not limited toward the Jews.
> The post is:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> Lou PilderThe correction to the first link is:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
Subjective I admit.
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 8:58:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
> If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
>
> Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
>
> But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
>
> Subjective I admit.I feel the same way regarding the posts of Lou Pilder. I have always been concerned that they have had the potential to foster and reinforce antisemitism. I believe it is a stereotype that Jews constantly cry antisemitism where none exists. Lou Pilder has done much to reinforce this stereotype. Also, I feel that his chronic citing of specific posts, and thus posters, as promoting antisemitism and violence against Jews contributes to civic disharmony.
I would suggest that no single poster has caused more civic disharmony than Lou Pilder. This, of course, is my perception. I have no statistics to verify this. I look forward to following his posts on the Medication forum to see if his posture has changed, now that the forum is actively moderated.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 9:09:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
> If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
>
> Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
>
> But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
>
> Subjective I admit.
>
Friends,
It is written,[...the things most likely to set the fires of anger toward Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semitism where none were intended...].
The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings that could be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and also seen as supportive , for support takes precedence here in Mr Hsiung's TOS.
Those statements in question that are plainly visible here and are in my discussion with Mr Hsiung, can stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews in particular but not limited to them. There is a rule here to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word when I read his rule. There is a procedure to follow for getting posts addressed by the administration and I am following that procedure as humanly possible. The procedure involves reminders and reminders to the reminders. The administrative board is for this purpose and I am posting here on that board for redress of grievances that I think could make this community better. If one does not want to see this constant endeavor of mine to have statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings addressed according to Mr. Hsiung's own TOS, then they could (redacted by respondent) and leave this to me and Mr. Hsiung or join in from their perspective.
Be advised, readers, that the poster that directed this to me says that I am making accusations of anti-Semitism where non is intended and because of that it could set the fire of anger toward Jews. If anyone is angry because I am trying to stop statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings from being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive, then do those people that are angry want those statements to remain as being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive? My friend, I am not going to stop using the administrative procedures provided here for those seeking redress of grievances because of what is written about me here. I could be the subject person that Dinah is using and I feel that what she has posted about me could arouse hatred toward Jews that object to statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings because she states that the intent of the posters of such could be that they did not intend for the statements in question to be anti-Semitic. I do not know their intent nor do I think that anyone else including Dinah could know the deep intent in one's heart to post such statements against the Jews that are in question here that you can see in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung. There is not an accusation of the poster being anti-Semitic, so that statement directed against me by Dinah is one that I deeply object to and her statement could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings toward me. This could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
I am giving Mr. Hsiung the opportunity to correct what I think are statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and cause harm to Jews by being victims of anti-Semitic violence because readers could think that those statements in question are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And when a person that already harbors hatred toward the Jews sees these statements in question, that IMHO could give them incentive to feel justified in harming or murdering a Jew because a psychiatrist has a rule not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or to post anything that could put down those of other faiths and to not post what is not supportive. So those statements allowed to stand could be thought by a subset of readers to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. If it could be good for this community as a whole, some readers could think that it could be good for their community as a whole also. This could result in the harm and murder of Jews as the historical record shows. I will do my part to object to the statements in question under discussion regardless what the intent of the poster could be, for it is what can be seen that is plainly visible that is in question here, the intent of the poster of such could be unseen .
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 9:23:32
In reply to Lou's response-uhnpsean, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 9:09:16
> The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings...
"Could" this and "could" that...
These are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence.
Can you replace the word "could" with the word "does" in your posits of antisemitism. Do you know of anyone on Psycho-Babble who has been harmed by the posts you cite as promoting civic disharmony?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 11:50:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response-uhnpsean, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 9:23:32
> > The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings...
>
> "Could" this and "could" that...
>
> These are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence.
>
> Can you replace the word "could" with the word "does" in your posits of antisemitism. Do you know of anyone on Psycho-Babble who has been harmed by the posts you cite as promoting civic disharmony?
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...these are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence...].
The demonstration of theharm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record. And to see how this is promulgated historically, see the following video.
Lou
To see this video:
A. Bring p Google
B. Type in:
[ youtube,UDv1aqbWRE0 ]
after the "v" is a "one"
after the "E" there is a "zero"
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 14:31:45
In reply to Lou's response-phozderheyttwdjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 11:50:11
> The demonstration of the harm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record.
What you ask for is illogical.
I have yet to see antisemitism in any of the posts you cite, even those that describe a belief in the necessity to go through Jesus to get to heaven or to be required to be circumcised to get to heaven. When you find antisemitism in a current post, perhaps then we can draw from the historical record. For now, your attachment to posts that are many years old, and your requesting the moderator to remove them would create more problems than would be solved. There would be concerns regarding the constant editing of content and needing a cumbersome protocol to review the entire history of posts on Psycho-Babble.
Do you think your history of posting has been conducive to civic harmony? This is a critical question, given your use of civic harmony as a benchmark of civility. If civic harmony were the measure of civility, you would probably be blocked from posting indefinitely as is demonstrated by people's reactions to your posting behaviors. However, civic harmony alone cannot be sufficient to determine civility. It is possible that only one person in the community knows the truth and feels compelled to inform and persuade everyone else to consider his pleas.
Your litany of listings of antisemitic posts is untenable. You have not managed to identify a single one. Not a single one. If you have a problem with a Christian expressing their belief that one must go through Jesus to get to Heaven, then let's discuss that and come to a resolution. Perhaps you can compare and contrast that belief with that of Jews that a male must be circumcised to get to Heaven.
----------------------------------------------
John 14:6
"No one gets to the Father but through me."
----------------------------------------------
There no unanimity among theologians as to what this passage in the New Testament means. Is the "Father" a reference to salvation and Heaven or, rather, to creating a closer bond with God while on Earth?
QUESTION: Is this reference the one and only problem you have with posts regarding Christianity?
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.