![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 240 to 264 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 8:30:13
In reply to Lou's reply-schoemeigh » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 22:02:57
> > Lou,
> >
> > IMO, as long as you see your often-used description, i.e:
> >
> > >>statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings
> >
> > as factual, "plainly seen," obvious, and/or downplay/completely disregard the word **could** no meaningful dialog will take place. To me, this means they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination. I think you write this over and over again as a given, when it is anything but that.
> >
> > As long as you cannot imagine or entertain the idea that for many Babblers, the statements you cite in posts are NOT...
> >
> > >>plainly visible [here are] statements that put down Jews
> >
> > no meaningful dialog will take place. I find when I am passionate about a thing, those are the times I must get myself to imagine the completely opposite POV in order to have meaningful dialog. I do that with you, the best I possibly can, but I just still can't conceive of these things as anti-Semitism.
> >
> > >>posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr.[sic] Hsiung.
> >
> > Did Dr. Bob say the above...exactly? I thought he said he could see how you could think one particular statement in one post *might* or *could* cause Jews or others to feel put down. Am I mistaken? Did he say an actual (not hypothetically) post or posts are anti-Semitic? Could you show me that?
> >
> > 10,
> You wrote,[...could you show me that?...]
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> > Lou
>
> 10,
Now that you see what is plainly visible above in the link that does state that Mr Hsiung agrees with me that statements that could put down Jews are anti-Semitic statements, I have the following concerns and if you could post answers to them, I think that could go a long way in helping Jews from being victims of anti-Semitic violence that IMHO could come from this site by the nature that anti-Semitic statements are plainly visible here and could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive. And more than that, there are statements that IMHO could induce hostile and disparaging opinions and feelings against me here that a subset of readers IMO could be influenced by to target a Jew or Islamic person or others that are not Christians for harm by the nature that this community has these statements that could put down Jews and Islamic people being plainly seen as that they will be good for this community as a whole because Mr Hsiung's terms of service state that in his thinking he wants readers to trust him in that what he does, or I guess what he doesn't do, will be good for this community as a whole. And since he states that one match could start a forest fire so that he does not wait to sanction a statement, unsanctioned statements could cause a subset of people to think that those statements are supportive because Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and not to post what could put down those of other faiths. As to statements that do put down Jews and others being allowed to stand, IMHO there could be a subset of people that could think that antisemitism is state-sponsored here. This is part of how I understand, and other psychologists also, how hate groups develop over time. I am here to stop this community from allowing hatred to be allowed to stand here. As to anti-Semitic statements here being allowed to stand here, I ask you:
A. Do you agree with Mr Hsiung in that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow those statements to stand?
B. In this statement in particular, if you think that it will be good for it to stand, what good will there be if the statement continues to be allowed to stand? The statement says something like:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a path back to the Father...].
The statement puts down Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and others that have a religion that has a path back to the Father that is not a Christian religion. The statement insult those religion and there IMHO and knowledge are subsets of people that are in those religions being put down that could feel greatly offended when they read the statement that says something like, [...Christianity is the {only}....]. The use of the word {only}precludes all those that are not members of Christianity, does it not? Thearfore, a subset of readers could think that their religion , if not Christian, can not have a path for them to return to the Father. (but Christianity does). That is an example of the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
C. Were you a deputy when that was posted?
D. If so, why did you not address the post in relation to the rules of Mr Hsiung's TOS?
E. Were you ever told not to address it as deputy? If so, by whom?
F. If you are not going to help me stop these statements from being allowed to be seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole by the nature that they are allowed to stand, for what reason could you give to not use any influence that you could have to help me?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2013, at 11:00:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevay » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2013, at 20:50:28
> In regards to Lar's post, there is not a post by you *linked* to the post in question at all. And anyway, the post that you did link to is a different post than the one that I have asked you to link to. I would like for you to explain to readers here what you are saying that you acted on what I am asking you to act on, when your action is to another post and there are things in one post that are not in the other.
My response was to both of them even though it was "in reply to" only the latter.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 15:59:04
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2013, at 11:00:28
> > In regards to Lar's post, there is not a post by you *linked* to the post in question at all. And anyway, the post that you did link to is a different post than the one that I have asked you to link to. I would like for you to explain to readers here what you are saying that you acted on what I am asking you to act on, when your action is to another post and there are things in one post that are not in the other.
>
> My response was to both of them even though it was "in reply to" only the latter.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that your reply was to both posts by Mr. Hoover. But does your reply address what is in the post by Mr. Hoover that is directed against me? If it does not, the consequences to me could be grave. For the poster mentions death to me. One would need to speculate how my death could happen as the poster wants it to happen to me, along with language IMHHO the asterisk does not hide, as language that could offend others could be a phrase that could be seen regardless of an asterisk in one word of the phrase. That is not in the second post by Mr. Hoover that you linked to, so what you posted to that post does not address the phrase wanting death to me with the street language along with it.
Because you have not addressed that part in the second post by Mr. Hoover, because it is not in that post, readers can not see anything by you that addresses the aspect of death to me by what Mr. Hoover wrote against me. This could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Mr. Hoover wrote against me is conducive to he civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in my death by there could be a subset of readers thinking that my death will be good for this community as a whole for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
I have some questions to you that will follow if you do not address the aspect in question concerning my death in that post before you make any other post....
Lou Pilder
Posted by larryhoover on November 10, 2013, at 17:41:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discu-tehykdthlytlee, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 15:59:04
"Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
--The Robot (Class M-3 Model B9, General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot, from 'Lost in Space'.)"This could conceivably result in my death..."
--Lou PilderTry reading for comprehension, Lou. I told you to FOAD, not that I or anyone else was going to kill you.
This statement by Lou could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Lou Pilder suggested that Mr. Hoover wrote against him is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in negative perceptions of me, as there could be a subset of readers thinking that Lou's actual death was promoted by me, whether or not that will be good for this community as a whole, for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
Pheww!
Try the blue pills. I hear they're very effective for psychotic delusions about horsemen and instructions from God.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 18:12:38
In reply to Warning! Warning! » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on November 10, 2013, at 17:41:28
> "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
> --The Robot (Class M-3 Model B9, General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot, from 'Lost in Space'.)
>
> "This could conceivably result in my death..."
> --Lou Pilder
>
> Try reading for comprehension, Lou. I told you to FOAD, not that I or anyone else was going to kill you.
>
> This statement by Lou could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Lou Pilder suggested that Mr. Hoover wrote against him is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in negative perceptions of me, as there could be a subset of readers thinking that Lou's actual death was promoted by me, whether or not that will be good for this community as a whole, for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
>
> Pheww!
>
> Try the blue pills. I hear they're very effective for psychotic delusions about horsemen and instructions from God.
>
> Lar
>
>Friends,
When someone says that another is to die, and the means or manner of death is not specified, then one needs to speculate as to what the author meant. That could lead a subset of readers to think many things, things that could cause my death, since I am the subject person in Mr. Hoover's post. But it is much more than that. For in the post, the author also calls me names.
Now let us look at the post by Mr. Hoover against me that is in question that Mr. Hsiung has not linked anything to.
[ admin, 1051978 ]
Now here is the second post by Mr. Hoover that Mr. Hsiung did link to.
[ admin, 10511980 ]
Now here is Mr. Hsiung's post linked to Mr. Hoover's second post, which is different from his first post directed to me personally.
Notice that Mr. Hoover's first post uses a conjunction that grammatically connects the two ,[...FO {and} die...].
It is not specified as to the reason that the author has to make such a statement against me. This could cause IMO a subset of readers to think of their own reason that they could attribute to Mr. Hoover for saying this about me here. That could cause a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hoover said that against me because of what I am doing here, hence that if I am dead, whatever I am posting here would not be posted by me.
The major thrust of my being here is to stop the statements that are anti-Semitic from being seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole. This can be done by Mr. Hsiung taking remedial action to show readers that the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and statements that put down those that are not Christians, are noted such as not supportive or conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. My question s why would anyone want me to be dead so that I would be stopped from doing that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 18:30:45
In reply to Lou's response-pstoppheyt » larryhoover, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 18:12:38
> > "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
> > --The Robot (Class M-3 Model B9, General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot, from 'Lost in Space'.)
> >
> > "This could conceivably result in my death..."
> > --Lou Pilder
> >
> > Try reading for comprehension, Lou. I told you to FOAD, not that I or anyone else was going to kill you.
> >
> > This statement by Lou could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Lou Pilder suggested that Mr. Hoover wrote against him is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in negative perceptions of me, as there could be a subset of readers thinking that Lou's actual death was promoted by me, whether or not that will be good for this community as a whole, for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
> >
> > Pheww!
> >
> > Try the blue pills. I hear they're very effective for psychotic delusions about horsemen and instructions from God.
> >
> > Lar
> >
> >Friends,
> When someone says that another is to die, and the means or manner of death is not specified, then one needs to speculate as to what the author meant. That could lead a subset of readers to think many things, things that could cause my death, since I am the subject person in Mr. Hoover's post. But it is much more than that. For in the post, the author also calls me names.
> Now let us look at the post by Mr. Hoover against me that is in question that Mr. Hsiung has not linked anything to.
> [ admin, 1051978 ]
> Now here is the second post by Mr. Hoover that Mr. Hsiung did link to.
> [ admin, 10511980 ]
> Now here is Mr. Hsiung's post linked to Mr. Hoover's second post, which is different from his first post directed to me personally.
> Notice that Mr. Hoover's first post uses a conjunction that grammatically connects the two ,[...FO {and} die...].
> It is not specified as to the reason that the author has to make such a statement against me. This could cause IMO a subset of readers to think of their own reason that they could attribute to Mr. Hoover for saying this about me here. That could cause a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hoover said that against me because of what I am doing here, hence that if I am dead, whatever I am posting here would not be posted by me.
> The major thrust of my being here is to stop the statements that are anti-Semitic from being seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole. This can be done by Mr. Hsiung taking remedial action to show readers that the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and statements that put down those that are not Christians, are noted such as not supportive or conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. My question s why would anyone want me to be dead so that I would be stopped from doing that.
> LouFriends,
It is written above that instructions from God and horseman could be considered to be psychotic delusions and there are blue pills for that.
I am prevented from posting here from a Jewish perspective a revealed to me due to the prohibitions to me from Mr. Hsiung. Now the Rider on the white horse is not Christiandom's Jesus, as I have posted here before. The God that I give service and worship to is the same God that the Jews cherish. If I am psychotic and delusional because I have instructions from God, then would not all Jews that have instructions from God be (redacted by respondent) according to Mr. Hoover?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on November 10, 2013, at 19:41:57
In reply to Lou's response-gewzsikodik, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 18:30:45
Are there other Jews that have instructions from God? Did God signal you out from all of the Jews to deliver your message about the white Horse man? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on November 11, 2013, at 2:25:54
In reply to Lou's reply to former deputy 10derheart-cmplcty, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 8:30:13
Complicity?
Complicity with Dr. Bob?
Complicity with all of the other moderating deputies?
Complicity with all of the other Pycho-Babble forum members?
Complicity with the Devil?
Perhaps 10derheart was chosen as a deputy because she had sufficient mental health to take on a responsibility that was designed to enhance civic harmony. She sacrificed the sense of safety that can be found in inaction and invisibility. She was strong enough to aid in the moderation of forums that were often contentious. She accomplished her goal, and did so with kindness. She bullied no one.
I don't like the way Lou Pilder treats 10derheart. In this case, I think his behavior detracts from, rather than enhances, civic harmony. I don't think that the linkage of deputization with antisemitism is healthy. It is almost as if there is an attempt to rewrite history in an effort to assign blame. Is 10derheart an easy target? No way! She is much stronger than any Internet bully.
One thing that Lou Pilder often does is to allow some passage of time before attempting to revisit an argument that he previously lost. He ignores them as if they had never occurred. This is how he effects his circuitous manipulation of the posting environment. I will not so easily be duped by time. I no longer wish to aid in the perpetuation of this cycle. I will not answer the same questions over and over again. I will not revisit previously resolved issues. Nor will I engage in arguments that have already been made.
Be strong. You know who you are.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2013, at 6:07:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to former deputy 10derheart-cmplcty, posted by SLS on November 11, 2013, at 2:25:54
> Complicity?
>
> Complicity with Dr. Bob?
>
> Complicity with all of the other moderating deputies?
>
> Complicity with all of the other Pycho-Babble forum members?
>
> Complicity with the Devil?
>
> Perhaps 10derheart was chosen as a deputy because she had sufficient mental health to take on a responsibility that was designed to enhance civic harmony. She sacrificed the sense of safety that can be found in inaction and invisibility. She was strong enough to aid in the moderation of forums that were often contentious. She accomplished her goal, and did so with kindness. She bullied no one.
>
> I don't like the way Lou Pilder treats 10derheart. In this case, I think his behavior detracts from, rather than enhances, civic harmony. I don't think that the linkage of deputization with antisemitism is healthy. It is almost as if there is an attempt to rewrite history in an effort to assign blame. Is 10derheart an easy target? No way! She is much stronger than any Internet bully.
>
> One thing that Lou Pilder often does is to allow some passage of time before attempting to revisit an argument that he previously lost. He ignores them as if they had never occurred. This is how he effects his circuitous manipulation of the posting environment. I will not so easily be duped by time. I no longer wish to aid in the perpetuation of this cycle. I will not answer the same questions over and over again. I will not revisit previously resolved issues. Nor will I engage in arguments that have already been made.
>
> Be strong. You know who you are.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Friends,
The issue now concerns the deputies involvement in that there are anti-Semitic statements that could be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive. This is all because those statements stand without sanction so that a subset of readers could think that they are supportive because Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that one match could start a forest fire so he does not wait to sanction what is not supportive. So some could think that unsanctioned posts are supportive according to Mr. Hsiung. But could those people also think that those anti-Semitic statements are considered to be supportive by also the deputies of record when those statements were posted?
Then the question could arise as to if or if not by leaving anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic statements to stand by Mr Hsiung and his deputies, constitute a crime? That depends on the jurisdiction that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies then find themselves in. In some jurisdictions, Mr Hsiung and his deputies would have their heads cut off for allowing statements that insult Islam. One of those statements is in discussion here that says something like:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a path back to the Father...]. The statement insults Islam, Judaism and all non-Christian religions that do have a path back to the Father. The statement puts down Jews and others so it is an anti-Semitic statement. In some Islamic states, death to Mr. Hsiung and his deputies and anyone else that is in concert with them to allow the insult to Islam to stand, instead of denouncing those statements that insult Islam, could have their heads cut off.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/016-insulters-islam.htm
As to if it is a crime elseware, a jury would need to determine that based on the totality of the circumstances. One circumstance used is if the libel of the Jews or others is *inciting* to do harm or incite death toward a Jew or other groups where a hate crime is involved. Here there is a post where the poster wants death to come to me and is not directly addressed by Mr Hsiung or his deputy. It is conceivable to me that there could be a subset of readers of that post that could act out the wanting of me to be dead. I base this on the historical records where Jews were advocated for death and the advocating of death to the targeted person was not stopped by the leader, so a subset of people could think that the advocating of death to the one targeted is state-sponsored. This is compounded by that there is no denunciation by the members also of the poster wanting death to come to me. There are other factors that you can search the cases where people have been convicted of hate crimes and how those that helped in the hate were also convicted.
Now Mr Hsiung states that:
[...But being supportive takes precedence. Mt approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it is true--IF IT IS INCIVIL, THEY SHOULDN'T POST IT...] (emphasis mine) Robert Hsiung 7-22-02
When I read that by Mr. Hsiung, I took him at his word. And that is something I would think that the deputies know, or should know, since it is part of Mr. Hsiung's policy and one could think that a deputy would know, or should know, what policies they are to enforce. This is one of the aspects of this discussion, as to how could all of the deputies also leave the anti-Semitic statements to stand?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2013, at 11:48:56
In reply to Warning! Warning! » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on November 10, 2013, at 17:41:28
> Try reading for comprehension, Lou. I told you to FOAD, not that I or anyone else was going to kill you.
>
> Try the blue pills. I hear they're very effective for psychotic delusions about horsemen and instructions from God.Please don't be sarcastic, jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2013, at 16:15:09
In reply to Lou's reply to former deputy 10derheart-cmplcty, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 8:30:13
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > IMO, as long as you see your often-used description, i.e:
> > >
> > > >>statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings
> > >
> > > as factual, "plainly seen," obvious, and/or downplay/completely disregard the word **could** no meaningful dialog will take place. To me, this means they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination. I think you write this over and over again as a given, when it is anything but that.
> > >
> > > As long as you cannot imagine or entertain the idea that for many Babblers, the statements you cite in posts are NOT...
> > >
> > > >>plainly visible [here are] statements that put down Jews
> > >
> > > no meaningful dialog will take place. I find when I am passionate about a thing, those are the times I must get myself to imagine the completely opposite POV in order to have meaningful dialog. I do that with you, the best I possibly can, but I just still can't conceive of these things as anti-Semitism.
> > >
> > > >>posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr.[sic] Hsiung.
> > >
> > > Did Dr. Bob say the above...exactly? I thought he said he could see how you could think one particular statement in one post *might* or *could* cause Jews or others to feel put down. Am I mistaken? Did he say an actual (not hypothetically) post or posts are anti-Semitic? Could you show me that?
> > >
> > > 10,
> > You wrote,[...could you show me that?...]
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> > > Lou
> >
> > 10,
> Now that you see what is plainly visible above in the link that does state that Mr Hsiung agrees with me that statements that could put down Jews are anti-Semitic statements, I have the following concerns and if you could post answers to them, I think that could go a long way in helping Jews from being victims of anti-Semitic violence that IMHO could come from this site by the nature that anti-Semitic statements are plainly visible here and could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive. And more than that, there are statements that IMHO could induce hostile and disparaging opinions and feelings against me here that a subset of readers IMO could be influenced by to target a Jew or Islamic person or others that are not Christians for harm by the nature that this community has these statements that could put down Jews and Islamic people being plainly seen as that they will be good for this community as a whole because Mr Hsiung's terms of service state that in his thinking he wants readers to trust him in that what he does, or I guess what he doesn't do, will be good for this community as a whole. And since he states that one match could start a forest fire so that he does not wait to sanction a statement, unsanctioned statements could cause a subset of people to think that those statements are supportive because Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and not to post what could put down those of other faiths. As to statements that do put down Jews and others being allowed to stand, IMHO there could be a subset of people that could think that antisemitism is state-sponsored here. This is part of how I understand, and other psychologists also, how hate groups develop over time. I am here to stop this community from allowing hatred to be allowed to stand here. As to anti-Semitic statements here being allowed to stand here, I ask you:
> A. Do you agree with Mr Hsiung in that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow those statements to stand?
> B. In this statement in particular, if you think that it will be good for it to stand, what good will there be if the statement continues to be allowed to stand? The statement says something like:
> [...Christianity is the only religion that has a path back to the Father...].
> The statement puts down Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and others that have a religion that has a path back to the Father that is not a Christian religion. The statement insult those religion and there IMHO and knowledge are subsets of people that are in those religions being put down that could feel greatly offended when they read the statement that says something like, [...Christianity is the {only}....]. The use of the word {only}precludes all those that are not members of Christianity, does it not? Thearfore, a subset of readers could think that their religion , if not Christian, can not have a path for them to return to the Father. (but Christianity does). That is an example of the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
> C. Were you a deputy when that was posted?
> D. If so, why did you not address the post in relation to the rules of Mr Hsiung's TOS?
> E. Were you ever told not to address it as deputy? If so, by whom?
> F. If you are not going to help me stop these statements from being allowed to be seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole by the nature that they are allowed to stand, for what reason could you give to not use any influence that you could have to help me?
> LouFriends and 10_d_h
Now the discussion includes the actions, or inactions, of those that do Mr. Hsiung's wishes here. These are those that are listed here as a deputy.
The anti-Semitic posts here that are standing can be identified by as to if they put down Jews, as Mr. Hsiung agrees with me on that. But it is much more than that. Here is a list of the other ways a statement could be deemed to be an anti-Semitic statement.
Lou
To see this list, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ admin, 844756 ]
Look for the 844756 in the colored strip, not the subject line.
Posted by 10derheart on November 11, 2013, at 18:36:56
In reply to Lou's reply to former deputy 10derheart-cmplcty, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 8:30:13
As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
Decency is a good and useful quality -- perhaps you could try it sometime. Have a wonderful day, Lou.
Posted by 10derheart on November 11, 2013, at 18:45:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to former deputy 10derheart-cmplcty, posted by SLS on November 11, 2013, at 2:25:54
Scott,
I have literally run out of superlatives for you. I wish I could give you a hug IRL (if you wouldn't mind).
Your support is always noticed and appreciated. As you said in several eloquent ways....I know who and what I am. I have a relationship with my God that surpasses anything and everything. Nothing ridiculous Lou or anyone insinuates here will touch that.
Thanks for being a life-enhancer.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2013, at 20:49:22
In reply to Lou Pilder » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on November 11, 2013, at 18:36:56
> As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> Decency is a good and useful quality -- perhaps you could try it sometime. Have a wonderful day, Lou.Friends, deputies and Mr. Hsiung
If you are interested in this discussion, be advised that there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me here. Statements that are still outstanding that I think could cause hatred toward the Jews to be fostered here because the anti-Semitic statements against the Jews are standing so that there could be a subset of readers that could think that the dehumanizing statements against the Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, for support takes precedence according to Mr Hsiung. But it is much more than that.
You see, the statements could cause a forest fire of hate, hatred toward the Jews, as long as the fire of hate is not quenched. And to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy now, and his deputies then, only you can prevent forest fires here, for I am helpless to require you to sanction the statements. And you say to me that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate.
Lou
to see some of these type in the search box:
[ Lou, Indok ]
Posted by SLS on November 11, 2013, at 22:16:18
In reply to Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2013, at 20:49:22
> I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate.
Do you hate 10derheart?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 6:25:34
In reply to Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 11, 2013, at 20:49:22
> > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
> >
> > Decency is a good and useful quality -- perhaps you could try it sometime. Have a wonderful day, Lou.
>
> Friends, deputies and Mr. Hsiung
> If you are interested in this discussion, be advised that there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me here. Statements that are still outstanding that I think could cause hatred toward the Jews to be fostered here because the anti-Semitic statements against the Jews are standing so that there could be a subset of readers that could think that the dehumanizing statements against the Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, for support takes precedence according to Mr Hsiung. But it is much more than that.
> You see, the statements could cause a forest fire of hate, hatred toward the Jews, as long as the fire of hate is not quenched. And to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy now, and his deputies then, only you can prevent forest fires here, for I am helpless to require you to sanction the statements. And you say to me that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate.
> Lou
> to see some of these type in the search box:
> [ Lou, Indok ]
>
Friends,
If you want to understand how the leaders of a community could foster hatred toward the Jews and other non-Christians, the posts in {Indok} above are only a sample of how tactics used to arouse hatred toward the Jews have been used historically. By allowing those type of statements to stand, a subset of readers could think that they are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, for Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content by not responding to my notifications and requests.
The question as to how could all of the deputies also not respond to my years of notifications? I know of just a singular answer to that question and unless the deputies post otherwise, it is obvious to me why the deputies also di not respond to my years of notifications, notifications that I think if were replied to, any harm toward Jews and others that could come from those statements seen by anyone as supportive, could be prevented.
But it is much more than that. Mr Hsiung has posted why he did not respond to my notifications. He says that by him not responding, that others could be influenced to also not respond to me. And that, then, according to Mr Hsiung's TOS, will be good for this community as a whole, for he says that in his thinking that what he does, or I guess what he doesn't do, will be good for this community as a whole. Really? I have never seen that using any tactic to be indifferent to another to bring forth good fruit. I have only seen that tactic to bring forth hatred toward the targeted person, for the tactic could stigmatize the person that the leader is deliberatly not responding to. This stigmatization has historical parallels that Mr Hsiung has posted prohibitions to me here that prevent me from educating readers from a Jewish perspective about that. And you that say that this is not so? Then read here.I will not allow a Badge of Shame to be put on me by anyone, nor will I allow anyone here to do so to another.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050336.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 6:32:19
In reply to Lou's response-pstygmah, posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 6:25:34
> > > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
> > >
> > > Decency is a good and useful quality -- perhaps you could try it sometime. Have a wonderful day, Lou.
> >
> > Friends, deputies and Mr. Hsiung
> > If you are interested in this discussion, be advised that there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me here. Statements that are still outstanding that I think could cause hatred toward the Jews to be fostered here because the anti-Semitic statements against the Jews are standing so that there could be a subset of readers that could think that the dehumanizing statements against the Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, for support takes precedence according to Mr Hsiung. But it is much more than that.
> > You see, the statements could cause a forest fire of hate, hatred toward the Jews, as long as the fire of hate is not quenched. And to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy now, and his deputies then, only you can prevent forest fires here, for I am helpless to require you to sanction the statements. And you say to me that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate.
> > Lou
> > to see some of these type in the search box:
> > [ Lou, Indok ]
> >
> Friends,
> If you want to understand how the leaders of a community could foster hatred toward the Jews and other non-Christians, the posts in {Indok} above are only a sample of how tactics used to arouse hatred toward the Jews have been used historically. By allowing those type of statements to stand, a subset of readers could think that they are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, for Mr Hsiung and his deputies can control the content by not responding to my notifications and requests.
> The question as to how could all of the deputies also not respond to my years of notifications? I know of just a singular answer to that question and unless the deputies post otherwise, it is obvious to me why the deputies also di not respond to my years of notifications, notifications that I think if were replied to, any harm toward Jews and others that could come from those statements seen by anyone as supportive, could be prevented.
> But it is much more than that. Mr Hsiung has posted why he did not respond to my notifications. He says that by him not responding, that others could be influenced to also not respond to me. And that, then, according to Mr Hsiung's TOS, will be good for this community as a whole, for he says that in his thinking that what he does, or I guess what he doesn't do, will be good for this community as a whole. Really? I have never seen that using any tactic to be indifferent to another to bring forth good fruit. I have only seen that tactic to bring forth hatred toward the targeted person, for the tactic could stigmatize the person that the leader is deliberatly not responding to. This stigmatization has historical parallels that Mr Hsiung has posted prohibitions to me here that prevent me from educating readers from a Jewish perspective about that. And you that say that this is not so? Then read here.I will not allow a Badge of Shame to be put on me by anyone, nor will I allow anyone here to do so to another.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050336.htmlcorrection:
To see the post in question as to that Mr Hsiung is using a tactic to influence readers here to not respond tome,
go to the search box here and type in:
[ admin, 1050362 ]
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 12, 2013, at 10:58:39
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discu-tehykdthlytlee, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 15:59:04
> Because you have not addressed that part in the second post by Mr. Hoover, because it is not in that post, readers can not see anything by you that addresses the aspect of death to me by what Mr. Hoover wrote against me. This could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Mr. Hoover wrote against me is conducive to he civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in my death by there could be a subset of readers thinking that my death will be good for this community as a whole
I think we disagree about the likelihood of (1) that statement being seen as supportive and good for this community and (2) that leading to you being traumatized.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 15:48:44
In reply to Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-dehlybihndyf?, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 8:10:14
> > > > > > > > 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 Pilder
> >
> > The correction to the first link is:
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
> My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
> Lou, I'm going to:
> A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
> D. Something else.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
We now have the two posts that IMHO could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that what is contained in the post could lead a Jew to feel put down. The one post is concerning that it states something like,[...Christianity is he only religion that has a path back to the Father, or to God...]. As of now I do not see any post by you linked to that post. If you are not going to take remedial action in regards to this post that could put down Jews and Islamic people and anyone else that has a religion that offers a way back to God that is not part of Christianity, then you could go on to this post and post here if you consider it to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 18:08:57
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-koehlb, posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 15:48:44
> > > > > > > > > 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 Pilder
> > >
> > > The correction to the first link is:
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
> > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
> > Lou, I'm going to:
> > A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> > C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
> > D. Something else.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> We now have the two posts that IMHO could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that what is contained in the post could lead a Jew to feel put down. The one post is concerning that it states something like,[...Christianity is he only religion that has a path back to the Father, or to God...]. As of now I do not see any post by you linked to that post. If you are not going to take remedial action in regards to this post that could put down Jews and Islamic people and anyone else that has a religion that offers a way back to God that is not part of Christianity, then you could go on to this post and post here if you consider it to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.htmlcorrection:
I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2013, at 10:18:28
In reply to correction:The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-koehlb, posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2013, at 18:08:57
> > > > > > > > > > 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 Pilder
> > > >
> > > > The correction to the first link is:
> > > > Lou
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
> > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
> > > Lou, I'm going to:
> > > A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> > > C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
> > > D. Something else.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > We now have the two posts that IMHO could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that what is contained in the post could lead a Jew to feel put down. The one post is concerning that it states something like,[...Christianity is he only religion that has a path back to the Father, or to God...]. As of now I do not see any post by you linked to that post. If you are not going to take remedial action in regards to this post that could put down Jews and Islamic people and anyone else that has a religion that offers a way back to God that is not part of Christianity, then you could go on to this post and post here if you consider it to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
>
> correction:
> I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
Be advised that your terms of service here is that if a post is not addressed by you, that others could think that you are indicating by your not addressing it, that the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
Now if there is a subset of readers that could think that, then the "match" could light the fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and that subset of readers that post such could think that they are doing what you appreciate them to do, for you say that you want readers to try to trust you in that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they do. The aspect of how likely that could happen is not in your terms of service, for it reads not to post {anything} that could put down those of other faiths. And anyway, I have not given my thoughts here on how likely or not statements that put down Jews could cause another to target a Jew for murder. So I can not think of why you have any reason to say that you disagree with me in relation to how likely that could happen, for I never stated my opinion about that quantity.
Let us look at what has been posted here by you:
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2013, at 7:12:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response-gewzsikodik » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 10, 2013, at 19:41:57
> Are there other Jews that have instructions from God? Did God signal you out from all of the Jews to deliver your message about the white Horse man? Phillipa
Phillipa,
It has been revealed to me that the God that the Jews give service and worship to anoints some people as {messengers} for specific purposes. These messengers can be attacked by those that do not want the messages that they bring to be known. The message is usually a warning so that those that the message is intended for do not have an excuse that they did not get due-process and say that they never heard.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2013, at 13:13:52
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rulz, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2013, at 10:18:28
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > The correction to the first link is:
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > > The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
> > > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
> > > > Lou, I'm going to:
> > > > A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> > > > C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
> > > > D. Something else.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > We now have the two posts that IMHO could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that what is contained in the post could lead a Jew to feel put down. The one post is concerning that it states something like,[...Christianity is he only religion that has a path back to the Father, or to God...]. As of now I do not see any post by you linked to that post. If you are not going to take remedial action in regards to this post that could put down Jews and Islamic people and anyone else that has a religion that offers a way back to God that is not part of Christianity, then you could go on to this post and post here if you consider it to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
> >
> > correction:
> > I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> Be advised that your terms of service here is that if a post is not addressed by you, that others could think that you are indicating by your not addressing it, that the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> Now if there is a subset of readers that could think that, then the "match" could light the fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and that subset of readers that post such could think that they are doing what you appreciate them to do, for you say that you want readers to try to trust you in that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they do. The aspect of how likely that could happen is not in your terms of service, for it reads not to post {anything} that could put down those of other faiths. And anyway, I have not given my thoughts here on how likely or not statements that put down Jews could cause another to target a Jew for murder. So I can not think of why you have any reason to say that you disagree with me in relation to how likely that could happen, for I never stated my opinion about that quantity.
> Let us look at what has been posted here by you:
> Lou PIlder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.htmlMr. Hsiung,
Now I want to cntiue our discussion. But take the following int consideration when you post ay reply to me.
Here you say that just a small statement can lead someone to feel put down, and to be civil at all times
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Now here are some of the posts that others could think that you are saying that they are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive due to what you have posted about if posts are not addressed by you. If you really think that, then could you post an affirmation of that here now? If you do, then I will go in a different direction here in our discussion.
Here are some of the posts in our discussion that I am awaiting for your response to me.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2013, at 13:20:39
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phoz, posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2013, at 13:13:52
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The correction to the first link is:
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > > > The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
> > > > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
> > > > > Lou, I'm going to:
> > > > > A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> > > > > C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
> > > > > D. Something else.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > We now have the two posts that IMHO could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that what is contained in the post could lead a Jew to feel put down. The one post is concerning that it states something like,[...Christianity is he only religion that has a path back to the Father, or to God...]. As of now I do not see any post by you linked to that post. If you are not going to take remedial action in regards to this post that could put down Jews and Islamic people and anyone else that has a religion that offers a way back to God that is not part of Christianity, then you could go on to this post and post here if you consider it to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
> > >
> > > correction:
> > > I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > Be advised that your terms of service here is that if a post is not addressed by you, that others could think that you are indicating by your not addressing it, that the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > Now if there is a subset of readers that could think that, then the "match" could light the fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and that subset of readers that post such could think that they are doing what you appreciate them to do, for you say that you want readers to try to trust you in that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they do. The aspect of how likely that could happen is not in your terms of service, for it reads not to post {anything} that could put down those of other faiths. And anyway, I have not given my thoughts here on how likely or not statements that put down Jews could cause another to target a Jew for murder. So I can not think of why you have any reason to say that you disagree with me in relation to how likely that could happen, for I never stated my opinion about that quantity.
> > Let us look at what has been posted here by you:
> > Lou PIlder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Now I want to cntiue our discussion. But take the following int consideration when you post ay reply to me.
> Here you say that just a small statement can lead someone to feel put down, and to be civil at all times
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> Now here are some of the posts that others could think that you are saying that they are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive due to what you have posted about if posts are not addressed by you. If you really think that, then could you post an affirmation of that here now? If you do, then I will go in a different direction here in our discussion.
> Here are some of the posts in our discussion that I am awaiting for your response to me.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
>
> correction
The last link is not a post under discussion as a post that could put down Jews as the other two in that set of three are involved in the discussion between Mr. Hsiung and me. I accidently included that link there.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on November 14, 2013, at 19:28:38
In reply to Lou's reply-ehyngellz » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2013, at 7:12:01
Lou so this makes you special like an Angel do the Jews believe in Angels as I don't know. So if I'm not a Jew and I ignore the message. I am not responsible? Phillipa
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.