![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 325 to 349 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by larryhoover on December 6, 2013, at 22:10:19
In reply to Re: protection, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 11:47:49
> I'd be interested to hear Scott's response on how 10der and I should learn to accept that the moderator of this site thinks it's acceptable for people, or a person, to throw sh*t at us at this site.
I can't believe that I'm a witness to such an abuse of civility. Truly, sincerely, there is no better example of what civility actually is, than to protect individuals from the throwing of sh*t upon them.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 14:17:46
In reply to Re: protection » Dinah, posted by larryhoover on December 6, 2013, at 22:10:19
> such an abuse of civility.
Please don't 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
PS: This block is the result of one action, but its length is the result of a pattern of actions. The block length formula takes into account how long the previous block was, how long it's been since the previous block, and how uncivil the current post is:
duration of previous block = 1 week
period of time since previous block = 3 weeks
severity = 2 (default)
block length = 1.92 rounded = 2 weeks
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 14:19:11
In reply to Re: protection » Dinah, posted by jane d on December 6, 2013, at 14:56:54
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 15:01:51
In reply to Re: protection, posted by Dinah on December 6, 2013, at 11:47:49
> I'd be interested to hear Scott's response on how 10der and I should learn to accept that the moderator of this site thinks it's acceptable for people, or a person, to throw sh*t at us at this site.
Dinah,
I could be the subject person in this post and the "us" could be the former deputies and what is being thrown at those deputies past could be analogous to excrement. What is associated with that excrement is not stated in this post, nor who constitutes the subset of people that are the "us". By that there is not specified who in your post is the target person that "throws whatever at the "us" people, the statement IMHO could arouse hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions toward me and decrease the confidence , respect and regard in which I am held. In following other posts here, it could be that the excrement is, IMO.
A. My posting my objection to that there are anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here
B. My posting that I want those statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings purged from this site
C. My posting that I want a former deputy to post answers to questions that I have posted in response to what the former deputy posted so that clarification could happen so that I could respond accordingly
D. My postings that I think that Mr Hsiung along with his former deputies constitute one entity so that by inaction of the administration to sanction a post that puts down Jews in particular, but not limited to, is inaction by all of them.
E. Something else.
But be it as it may be, it is a fact that there are anti-Semitic statements standing that I want addressed by the administration in any way that could show readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and those statements in question are not in accordance with the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
The issue as to why years of notifications/requests by me are still outstanding is something that I do not want readers to speculate as to why 6 or so deputies and the owner/operator have not responded to them and the fact that anti-Semitic statements could arouse hatred toward me when readers see those being allowed to be thought by a subset of readers to be good for this community as a whole. This is something that I think that us have a duty to humanity to stop. This is because of the harm that could come to others by seeing those statements in question as supportive and what the historical record shows has happened to communities that foster anti-Semitism by allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand. I think that there could be harm to others and a great risk to the health of Jewish children and adults, and Islamic people and the others that hatred toward them has the potential to be aroused to by the statements in question. One being proposed to Mr. Hsiung now is the one that says something like:
[...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if their agenda is not centered in Christ...] The statement insults those of faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ. I am no threat to you for being on record as a deputy when that was posted, if you were, but there could be others that see the inaction as an insult to their faith not only by Mr. Hsiung, but by you and the other deputies of record then as well. And more could be thrown at you than excrement.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 15:28:44
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wurz, posted by Lou PIlder on December 6, 2013, at 18:58:26
> As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
--
> let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.I think you mean this statement in this post:
> > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
I propose I post to that thread something like:
> The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
>
> > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 15:28:44
> > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
>
> --
>
> > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
>
> I think you mean this statement in this post:
>
> > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> I propose I post to that thread something like:
>
> > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> >
> > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
We are using a two-part test:
1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
Let us examine your proposal to see.
The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
Let us look further at your proposal that says:
[...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
[...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by 10derheart on December 8, 2013, at 16:48:59
In reply to Lou's response-phatwah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 15:01:51
>>And more could be thrown at you than excrement.
Is this a threat?
What does it mean? Please explain.
I feel threatened by it.
We may be moving toward revelations of off-board communications, with or without permission.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
In reply to Re: what is this » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 8, 2013, at 16:48:59
> >>And more could be thrown at you than excrement.
>
> Is this a threat?
>
> What does it mean? Please explain.
>
> I feel threatened by it.
>
> We may be moving toward revelations of off-board communications, with or without permission.
>
>
10,
The statements here that could be understood by a subset of readers that insult Judaism and Islam and other faiths go to other countries. There are those that could hold you and the other deputies of record when a post that insults Islam is left to stand, which could mean to a subset of readers that those that could have acted on the statement chose to not do so because they think that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow those type of statements to be unsanctioned, which could mean that the administration could want those statements to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. Statements that insult Judaism, Islam and other faiths put down those faiths. There are countries where that could put on-line promoters of what they say will be good for a community as a whole, that insult Islam, to be captured and killed or imprisoned.
So if you think that by you failing to act on these statements that you have some type of immunity in some other countries, be advised that there are countries where anyone that is involved in insulting Islam could be executed,, even the deputies of the on-line promoter and conceivably any of the members that are in concert with you to allow statements that put down and insult Islam.
Lou
http://rt.com/news/saudi-blogger-sentenced-islam-846
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2013, at 19:05:56
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
Can you prove who or what I am referring to?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2013, at 19:42:32
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
I am not impressed with my singing.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 19:45:06
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
> > >>And more could be thrown at you than excrement.
> >
> > Is this a threat?
> >
> > What does it mean? Please explain.
> >
> > I feel threatened by it.
> >
> > We may be moving toward revelations of off-board communications, with or without permission.
> >
> >
> 10,
> The statements here that could be understood by a subset of readers that insult Judaism and Islam and other faiths go to other countries. There are those that could hold you and the other deputies of record when a post that insults Islam is left to stand, which could mean to a subset of readers that those that could have acted on the statement chose to not do so because they think that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow those type of statements to be unsanctioned, which could mean that the administration could want those statements to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. Statements that insult Judaism, Islam and other faiths put down those faiths. There are countries where that could put on-line promoters of what they say will be good for a community as a whole, that insult Islam, to be captured and killed or imprisoned.
> So if you think that by you failing to act on these statements that you have some type of immunity in some other countries, be advised that there are countries where anyone that is involved in insulting Islam could be executed,, even the deputies of the on-line promoter and conceivably any of the members that are in concert with you to allow statements that put down and insult Islam.
> Lou
> http://rt.com/news/saudi-blogger-sentenced-islam-846
>10,
Now let us look at what blasphemy could carry as a sentence in Israel.
Lou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Israel
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2013, at 19:45:30
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
At this juncture, I am not impressed by your writings regarding the law and its application.
Please don't take this personally.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2013, at 20:11:10
In reply to Lou's reply-blsphemy in Israel, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 19:45:06
In my house, it is blasphemy to speak of blasphemy.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 8, 2013, at 20:24:21
In reply to Lou's reply-blsphemy in Israel, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 19:45:06
I have no evidence to present to you that they have. However, in my mind, this is a possibility.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on December 9, 2013, at 1:28:23
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
>>be advised that there are countries where anyone that is involved in insulting Islam could be executed,, even the deputies of the on-line promoter and conceivably any of the members that are in concert with you to allow statements that put down and insult Islam.
Ah, I see. Execution of deputies and possibly of the other posters, too? I hadn't thought of that. I am incapable of making such a leap from the subject at hand, but I see that you are able to do that.
I'll take my chances. Thanks for the warning, though.
And BTW, if I do see anything ****I see as**** antisemitic on Babble, I will be sure to speak up in some way.
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 3:00:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 9, 2013, at 1:28:23
> And BTW, if I do see anything ****I see as**** antisemitic on Babble, I will be sure to speak up in some way.
I am not a legal scholar.
I do not believe that you have a legal responsibility to write anything on the Internet while you reside on US soil. When acting as an agent of Psycho-Babble, I don't think that a lack of words posted by you represents an infraction of criminal or civil law. However, accusing one of antisemitism can be, especially if perpetrated via the written word.
I am curious to know under what circumstances hating Jews or influencing others to hate Jews is a crime in the absence of inciting a riot.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:01:26
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-werz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
> > > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
> >
> > Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> >
> > I think you mean this statement in this post:
> >
> > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> >
> > I propose I post to that thread something like:
> >
> > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > >
> > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> We are using a two-part test:
> 1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
> Let us examine your proposal to see.
> The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
> Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
> Let us look further at your proposal that says:
> [...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
> In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
> The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
> I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
> Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to the previous post in question, if you are not going to accommodate my request to show that the statement in question puts down those of other faiths as I have requested for you to post, then you can still post in that thread your remediation and then I will post my response to you where you post it.
Now we could go on with the next one. Here is a post that offers some links to bible passages. I am interested in the last offered link as John 5 as the LDS.org scripture link.
In the offered passage, the Jews are portrayed in a manner that constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, for the statements put down Jews.
These are in the verses 16, 18, 23, 37, 38, 42 and 44.
What I am asking for you to do here is to post your remediation so that readers could know that:
A. Linking to something still makes what is linked to be directly to the text and is as if the poster posted it themselves.
B. That the statements are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
C. That the statements put down Jews which is not in accordance with the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths
D. redacted by respondent
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:06:12
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-antiJuda, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:01:26
> > > > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > > > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > > > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > > > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> > >
> > > I think you mean this statement in this post:
> > >
> > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> > >
> > > I propose I post to that thread something like:
> > >
> > > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > > >
> > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > > >
> > > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > We are using a two-part test:
> > 1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
> > Let us examine your proposal to see.
> > The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
> > Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
> > Let us look further at your proposal that says:
> > [...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
> > In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
> > The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
> > I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
> > Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> > [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
> > Lou Pilder
> >
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to the previous post in question, if you are not going to accommodate my request to show that the statement in question puts down those of other faiths as I have requested for you to post, then you can still post in that thread your remediation and then I will post my response to you where you post it.
> Now we could go on with the next one. Here is a post that offers some links to bible passages. I am interested in the last offered link as John 5 as the LDS.org scripture link.
> In the offered passage, the Jews are portrayed in a manner that constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, for the statements put down Jews.
> These are in the verses 16, 18, 23, 37, 38, 42 and 44.
> What I am asking for you to do here is to post your remediation so that readers could know that:
> A. Linking to something still makes what is linked to be directly to the text and is as if the poster posted it themselves.
> B. That the statements are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> C. That the statements put down Jews which is not in accordance with the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths
> D. redacted by respondent
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
The link to this post with the passage that puts down Jews is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 11:36:20
In reply to Link- Lou's reply- Hsiung-Pilder -antiJuda, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:06:12
Is your Jewish perspective and personal spiritual revelations the only modalities by which someone can become free of psychotropic drugs and lead someone to peace and happiness?
1. If yes, then doesn't that discount all other perspectives, including Christian pathways that lead to mental health, peace, and happiness?
2. If yes, then could your statements not arouse anti-Christian sentiments when combined with your condemnation of the fundamental tenets of that religion?
3. If yes, then could your statements not arouse anti-Judaic sentiments due to your being a Jew who condemns the fundamental tenet of Christianity?
4. If no, then what other perspectives and modalities can free someone from psychotropic drugs and lead to peace and happiness?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
If Dr. Bob won't say it, I will. A citizens PBC.
I do not believe that threats are civil.
Posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:45:57
In reply to Please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
I daresay Dr. Bob believes that suggestions that one might be executed by Islamic peoples because we don't respond as Lou would like is perfectly civil.
But personally I think it's no more civil to followers of Islam than it is to me and 10derheart.
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 13:07:32
In reply to Please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
> If Dr. Bob won't say it, I will. A citizens PBC.
>
> I do not believe that threats are civil.
I'm sure you know that such a verbal threat can be ruled by a criminal court as being an assault; punishable by fines and imprisonment. A verbal assault can also be ruled as being a tort in civil court; to be remedied by payment of money for damages and punitive measures.IN REAL LIFE.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:39:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 9, 2013, at 1:28:23
> > be advised that there are countries where anyone that is involved in insulting Islam could be executed,, even the deputies of the on-line promoter and conceivably any of the members that are in concert with you to allow statements that put down and insult Islam.
>
> Ah, I see. Execution of deputies and possibly of the other posters, too? I hadn't thought of that. I am incapable of making such a leap from the subject at hand, but I see that you are able to do that.
>
> I'll take my chances. Thanks for the warning, though.I see the above as effective use of your shield. You saw something coming at you and you didn't let it get to you. Good work.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:46:50
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-werz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all.I wondered that, too. Do you know the answer? Does anyone else?
> Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].I like how accepting that is. But do you in fact feel there's no such thing as a bad reason for an organized religion?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:46:50
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all.
>
> I wondered that, too. Do you know the answer? Does anyone else?
>
> > Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> > [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
>
> I like how accepting that is. But do you in fact feel there's no such thing as a bad reason for an organized religion?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
The issue here is the statement in question. Adding to it does not annul what it purports about those religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
When a Jew sees the statement, or an Islamic person, or others that are members of a religion that does not have their agenda centered in Christ, there could be a subset of those people that could consider the statement to be an insult to their religion and to themselves for being a member of such. I am asking that you post to that post that the statement could lead people of other faiths to feel put down because it is against your rules to post what could put down those of other faiths. I do not consider your addition to what is posted to annul the fact of what the statement in question purports as you agree that it could mean that organized religions that do not have their agenda centered In Christ could be bad religions.
I suggest that if you are unwilling to state that the statement in question is against your rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then could you post your rationale for such here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Also, I would like to go on to the other post in our discussion about the link to John 5, that puts down Jews, and see what your remedial action could be for that.
Lou Pilder
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.