![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 355 to 379 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 14:00:22
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> > 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.
> Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.I didn't mean that in a bad way.
I just feel that, if you want to go to Heaven, it is suggested by many that the only way to do this is to accept Jesus Christ as your Messiah and Savior. Many, many good-hearted and intellectually gifted people have come to this conclusion and have written much to help the Jews find the heaven that they seek. For it is written...
You state that you are here to save lives. Some people are here to save souls.
As you would have the world believe that you can save lives by following the methodology to be found in your proprietary spiritual revelations, others would have the world believe that they can save souls by following the one and only scripture that they are taught to be Truth.
I need to go shovel snow now. I'll be back.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 16:54:54
In reply to Bad ways. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 14:00:22
> I need to go shovel snow now. I'll be back.
I'm back.
I just thought you should know.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 17:37:45
In reply to Re: Shields and intolerance. » SLS, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:28:04
> Gosh, Scott your posts all over these threads have been wonderful. Your decency and general good sense give me more faith in humankind.
>
> Thank you.As is often the case, 10der has said exactly what I feel.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:30:01
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> 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.
I don't think we disagree about the original statement. I think we disagree about my proposed restatement.
Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 19:06:41
In reply to Re: shielding oneself » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:20:26
> I don't know what you're talking about. Please do not use a therapeutic tone with me. I am not striving to use shields defined by you and certainly not to get a back pat. Yuk. What has happened to your appropriate boundaries here? This is a message board, not the therapy space and it is CREEPY when you sound like you are acting as a therapist to me. Please stop it.
I didn't mean to creep you out, sorry. I understand you're not looking to me for guidance or trying to please me.
And I know this isn't therapy. I'm thinking about the board, not about you. I can't know what's best for you. Would it be less creepy if you thought of me as a cop who pat you on the back for not speeding? I didn't think it was inappropriate to recognize you for responding in a civil way.
> It didn't get to me, you say? Shows how very, very little you understand anything about any of this if you believe that for a minute.
That's a good point. I apologize. All I knew is that you responded in a civil way. I didn't know what the experience was like for you. It may have really disturbed you.
> However, can you not see ... how it IS quite the put down to be told another person can easily see how some Islamic person somewhere would see former deputies here as deserving of a fatwa for their "crimes?"
I do see that it could be taken that way. I also see that it could be taken as a hypothetical scenario of low probability.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 19:33:05
In reply to Re: shielding oneself, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 19:06:41
I appreciate your phrasing yourself in terms of what's best for your idea of what Babble should be, and leaving off the shrink talk.
I disagree with you completely.
But I'm far less likely to be enraged if you leave off pretending that your behavior is in our best interests, and just focus on it being what you want us to do for your own purposes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 20:16:49
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:30:01
> > 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.
>
> I don't think we disagree about the original statement. I think we disagree about my proposed restatement.
>
> Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I don't think that we disagree about the original statement...]
The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
Now the other 9 reasons are not specific to other people's faiths like #5 is. They are general reasons that could be found in any organized religion, even in religions that are Christiandom religions. So those reasons do not put down Jews or Islamic people and the others for them being Jews and Islamic and such, but for any religion having that agenda, even a Christian religion. But #5 puts down Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the others because they do not have their agenda centered in Christ, which is an insult to all the people in those religions, and insulting to the religion itself because of the use of the category of being in the worst that readers could think means that those religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ are bad religions. And that could mean to a subset of readers that the people in those religions could feel put down as seeing that you allow the statement to be seen as supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and worse, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statement to be seen that way due to it not being sanctioned. And even worse, since you state that one match could start a forest fire and readers could see that you agree with me about the statement, then the fire of hate could be still burning.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 21:11:27
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phyrvheyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 20:16:49
The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
How do you know this?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2013, at 6:32:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phyrvheyt » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 21:11:27
> The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
>
> How do you know this?
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
The poster asks me How do I know that the statement is insulting on its face to Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith being in an organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ.
This is all because it is published here by a psychiatrist and allowed to stand by not only him but multiple deputies that do his wishes that they can either sanction a statement or allow it to stand. The statement that an organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ could be considered to be a bad religion by a subset of readers of the post, could libel Jews, Islamic people and the others that are in the organized religions so stated in the post in question. The statement is a false statement because Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and the others so named by the post are not bad people or in a bad religion because their religion has an agenda not centered in Christ. The statement in question could stigmatize and be an insult to Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people the others and defame those people. By the fact that the statement stands, a subset of readers could be encouraged to post analogous statements as that they could see the statement as being good for this community as a whole and supportive because Mr. Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here. In some jurisdictions the owner of a website is responsible for third-party posts as if he/she wrote them him/her self. That is on appeal as we read now and I do not think that it will be overturned. As of now, the fact that Mr Hsiung and up to 6 deputies have not responded to my notifications for years is a fact that could stigmatize me and other Jews and others because he states that he does not respond so that others could be in some way encouraged also to not respond to me by his example. This is considered by psychologists as what is known as creating social isolation to me, which is in and of itself causing me great humiliation and is IMHHHO an insult to humanity itself not only by him doing it, but by others being in concert with him.
How do I know this? I know this because I have the training to know what {put down} means. I have the training to know what libel means. I have the training to know what defamation is. I have the training to know what could put down Jews when it can be seen. And I can know it when I see it.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on December 11, 2013, at 19:39:24
In reply to Lou's response-lybl/stig/defm/ihnsul » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2013, at 6:32:21
I'm not a member of an organized religion so what does this make me in your opinion of course? Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 3:31:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response-lybl/stig/defm/ihnsul » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on December 11, 2013, at 19:39:24
> I'm not a member of an organized religion so what does this make me in your opinion of course? Phillipa
Phillipa,
The statement in question is an insult to those organized religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ. This does bring up your question here as to what about those not in an organized religion as to how if at all the statement could be insulting to them if it could.
One question could be as to if unaffiliated people are in a class of an organized religion or not.
The aspect of that the statement puts down, in particular but not limited, Judaism, and I guess those that belong to Judaism in an organized religion, has other posts by the same poster going deeper into this. Then there is your question in relation to the poster's other posts.
Let us first look at this libel of the Jews allowed to stand here. The statements about the Jews here are lies, they are false and not only put down Jews, they (redacted by respondent) and are allowed to be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and also supportive and worse, will be good for this community as a whole as Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good here for this community. And if Jews are allowed to be depicted in this manner here, this could lead a subset of readers IMO to think about unaffiliated people also. But let's see.
Here is the post:
[ admin, 428781 ]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 6:10:23
In reply to Lou's reply-uhnahphill » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 3:31:49
> > I'm not a member of an organized religion so what does this make me in your opinion of course? Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> The statement in question is an insult to those organized religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ. This does bring up your question here as to what about those not in an organized religion as to how if at all the statement could be insulting to them if it could.
> One question could be as to if unaffiliated people are in a class of an organized religion or not.
> The aspect of that the statement puts down, in particular but not limited, Judaism, and I guess those that belong to Judaism in an organized religion, has other posts by the same poster going deeper into this. Then there is your question in relation to the poster's other posts.
> Let us first look at this libel of the Jews allowed to stand here. The statements about the Jews here are lies, they are false and not only put down Jews, they (redacted by respondent) and are allowed to be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and also supportive and worse, will be good for this community as a whole as Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good here for this community. And if Jews are allowed to be depicted in this manner here, this could lead a subset of readers IMO to think about unaffiliated people also. But let's see.
> Here is the post:
> [ admin, 428781 ]
> LouFriends,
If you are following this situation that I find myself in here, I would like for you to examine the content of the following post.
Lou
[ admin, 1034151 ]
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 11:33:16
In reply to Re: shielding oneself » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 19:33:05
> I appreciate your phrasing yourself in terms of what's best for your idea of what Babble should be, and leaving off the shrink talk.
>
> I disagree with you completely.
>
> But I'm far less likely to be enraged if you leave off pretending that your behavior is in our best interests, and just focus on it being what you want us to do for your own purposes.Fair enough. What's good for an individual might not be good for the community. For example, from the FAQ:
> > It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
At the same time, it might be. Getting along with others could in some cases be good for both the individual and the community.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 11:34:41
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phyrvheyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 20:16:49
> > Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
>
> Now the other 9 reasons are not specific to other people's faiths like #5 is. They are general reasons that could be found in any organized religion, even in religions that are Christiandom religions. So those reasons do not put down Jews or Islamic people and the others for them being Jews and Islamic and such, but for any religion having that agenda, even a Christian religion. But #5 puts down Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the others because they do not have their agenda centered in Christ ... And that could mean to a subset of readers that the people in those religions could feel put downWhat about reason #1?
> > 1. to get rich
Is it only important that Jews and Muslims don't feel put down? What about members of a church whose reason is to get rich?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2013, at 13:10:27
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 11:34:41
> > > Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
> >
> > Now the other 9 reasons are not specific to other people's faiths like #5 is. They are general reasons that could be found in any organized religion, even in religions that are Christiandom religions. So those reasons do not put down Jews or Islamic people and the others for them being Jews and Islamic and such, but for any religion having that agenda, even a Christian religion. But #5 puts down Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the others because they do not have their agenda centered in Christ ... And that could mean to a subset of readers that the people in those religions could feel put down
>
> What about reason #1?
>
> > > 1. to get rich
>
> Is it only important that Jews and Muslims don't feel put down? What about members of a church whose reason is to get rich?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Is it only important that Jews and Muslims don't feel put down...].
What I posted is that the statement in question, #5, could be seen by a subset of readers that the statement in #5 puts down Judaism Islam, Hinduism, {and all other organized religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ}. So it is important to me that not only Jews and Muslims as you say here, but the others also that are in organized religion that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as well have the statement notated by you that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and the statement in #5 is not in accordance with your rule here to not post what could put down those of other faiths. There could be a subset of readers that could feel insulted by the fact that the statement is not notated by you and allowed to stand and see the statement in question being allowed by a subset of people to think that those organized religions are bad that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, and also that the people in those religions could be seen as bad by a subset of people that read the statement in question by the nature that the post categorizes those as that their agenda is in the worst of reasons for their organized religion and could think that you are validating the libel to those organized religions.
The aspect of #1 in the group does not specify what religions are organized to make money and that reason for those unspecified organized religions does not annul the fact of what #5 states about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ.
What I am asking from you is to notate what is there that {puts down those of other faiths} per your TOS, so that readers could see that this community repudiates the libel to those organized religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as that the statement in #5 could lead a subset of readers to think that the organized religions in question have one of the worst reasons out of 10 for them to be an organized religion. If you think #1 also puts down those of other faiths, even though the faiths are not specified, then you could do that also.
If you are unwilling to post the repudiation in the thread where it appears, then I am asking that we go to the next post that I have offered for you to also post a repudiation in the thread where it appears concerning the quote of John 5 and how those statements that I have listed are anti-Semitic, for do they not put down Jews?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 23:40:36
In reply to Lou's reply-Hisiung-Pilder discussion-eheevehyhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2013, at 13:10:27
> What I posted is that the statement in question, #5, could be seen by a subset of readers that the statement in #5 puts down Judaism Islam, Hinduism, {and all other organized religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ}.
I agree, but I don't think that would be true of the restatement that I proposed:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
Is #7 OK with you as is?
> > 7. to make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with the Bible or other scripture
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 5:56:37
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 23:40:36
> > What I posted is that the statement in question, #5, could be seen by a subset of readers that the statement in #5 puts down Judaism Islam, Hinduism, {and all other organized religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ}.
>
> I agree, but I don't think that would be true of the restatement that I proposed:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> Is #7 OK with you as is?
>
> > > 7. to make it up as they go along, without concern for alignment with the Bible or other scripture
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I agree...].
The statement in #5 puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ. This you agree on with me. The rule of yours is that one is not to post what could put down those of other faiths. I am asking for you to post a repudiation in the thread where the statement appears so that:
A. Readers know that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
B. And that the statement puts down those of other faiths.
I think that you could do this and include your rephrase that you think would annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. Then readers could post criticisms of your rephrase there as to if they think that your rephrase does not annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. I do not think that you need my permission to agree with your rephrase for you to post that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. For as long as the original statement in question remains standing, a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religions that do not have their agenda cantered in Christ.
If you are going to delay this and leave the statement to stand until I agree with your rephrase, then to protect innocent members here from any backlash to them because you will not apply the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then I am asking for you to post the following. Here is what I would like for you to post in that thread where #5 appears, something like:
[...Readers please note that the statement in #5 puts down those of other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ. I am allowing it to stand but that does not mean that other members endorse me doing that and I take full responsibility for leaving the statement to stand as could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And to those readers that feel insulted that I am allowing your faith to be put down, I am not concerned about how you feel, for my concern is what will be good for this community as a whole.
Dr. Bob
Then I would like to stop the anti-Semitism from being allowed to stand and ask that you go to the next post in question that cites John 5 and that I have listed the verses that put down Jews for you to address.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Phillipa on December 18, 2013, at 20:48:00
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heypstn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 5:56:37
Lou just a question are you telling Dr Bob how he should run his website? Just curious? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2013, at 23:16:48
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-heypstn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 5:56:37
> The statement in #5 puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ. This you agree on with me.
It's possible that some people could feel put down, yes.
> I am asking for you to post a repudiation in the thread where the statement appears so that:
> A. Readers know that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> B. And that the statement puts down those of other faiths.
> I think that you could do this and include your rephrase that you think would annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. Then readers could post criticisms of your rephrase there as to if they think that your rephrase does not annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. I do not think that you need my permission to agree with your rephraseTrue, I don't, but I like it when we can agree on something.
> If you are going to delay this and leave the statement to stand until I agree with your rephrase, then to protect innocent members here from any backlash to them because you will not apply the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then I am asking for you to post the following. Here is what I would like for you to post in that thread where #5 appears, something like:
> [...Readers please note that the statement in #5 puts down those of other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ. I am allowing it to stand but that does not mean that other members endorse me doing that and I take full responsibility for leaving the statement to stand as could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And to those readers that feel insulted that I am allowing your faith to be put down, I am not concerned about how you feel, for my concern is what will be good for this community as a whole.I think it's already understood that I'm allowing it to stand and taking responsibility for my actions and that others may not agree with them. I'm concerned both about people feeling insulted and about what's good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2013, at 9:52:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2013, at 23:16:48
> > The statement in #5 puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ. This you agree on with me.
>
> It's possible that some people could feel put down, yes.
>
> > I am asking for you to post a repudiation in the thread where the statement appears so that:
> > A. Readers know that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> > B. And that the statement puts down those of other faiths.
> > I think that you could do this and include your rephrase that you think would annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. Then readers could post criticisms of your rephrase there as to if they think that your rephrase does not annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. I do not think that you need my permission to agree with your rephrase
>
> True, I don't, but I like it when we can agree on something.
>
> > If you are going to delay this and leave the statement to stand until I agree with your rephrase, then to protect innocent members here from any backlash to them because you will not apply the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then I am asking for you to post the following. Here is what I would like for you to post in that thread where #5 appears, something like:
> > [...Readers please note that the statement in #5 puts down those of other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ. I am allowing it to stand but that does not mean that other members endorse me doing that and I take full responsibility for leaving the statement to stand as could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And to those readers that feel insulted that I am allowing your faith to be put down, I am not concerned about how you feel, for my concern is what will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> I think it's already understood that I'm allowing it to stand and taking responsibility for my actions and that others may not agree with them. I'm concerned both about people feeling insulted and about what's good for this community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's possible that some people could feel put down, yes...it's already understood that I am allowing it to stand...]
Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False
A. My terms of service, Lou, is that posters are not to post what could put down those of other faiths, but I really, all the time, meant that faiths such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, could have their faith put down here.
B. My TOS, Lou, states not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and I am changing that now to allow Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ to be put down here.
C. My TOS, Lou, is to not allow what could put down those of other faiths. Since anti-Semitic statements are those that you want purged, since I am allowing the insult to Judaism, Islam and Hinduism and the others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ to stand as that they could be seen by a subset of readers as to be in the worst organized religion by the nature of what the statement could purport that you want me to post that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and puts down those faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, then I am also going to allow statements that put down Jews to be exempt from my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths so that anti-Semitic statements will be allowed to stand.
Fill in the blank.
D. Since I do what in my thinking will be good for this community as a whole, Lou, it is good for this community for me to allow the statement in question to stand because, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 23:41:12
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozder » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2013, at 9:52:46
> Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
> > 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.That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 5:15:20
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 23:41:12
> > Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
>
> It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
>
> > > 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.
>
> That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The overriding concern of mine here is that the statement in question 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.
Now if you put in the thread where the statement appears that:
[...the above could be saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...],
Then that indicates that there is something that is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and obviously puts down those of other faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
So that would satisfy the mission of the community for support and education because your statement there could show that the original statement is not supportive. For if it was, it would stand without comment from you.
The aspect of your rephrase could be understood differently by people with different depths of knowledge concerning comparative religions.
But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 18:32:54
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-repulibl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 5:15:20
> > > Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
> >
> > It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The overriding concern of mine here is that the statement in question 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.
> Now if you put in the thread where the statement appears that:
> [...the above could be saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...],
> Then that indicates that there is something that is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and obviously puts down those of other faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
> So that would satisfy the mission of the community for support and education because your statement there could show that the original statement is not supportive. For if it was, it would stand without comment from you.
> The aspect of your rephrase could be understood differently by people with different depths of knowledge concerning comparative religions.
> But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
We can now continue to another post. In this post, Judaism is put down. Let us look at one part of the poster's message to the community here and wherever else it goes to.
[..Lou's burden of saving souls may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
I am asking that you post in that thread that the statement in not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, and it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. The statement could induce bullying toward Jewish children by readers that think that the statement is supportive and will be good for the community as a whole because without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you are validating what the statement could purport. And worse, there could have been up to 6 deputies that have IMHO a responsibility to carry out your policies or resign. And even worse, failure to address the libel toward the Jews could IMHO contribute to a Jewish child committing suicide as feeling put down when they read it that there is ongoing research to show how allowing statements that a subset of readers could see as putting down Jews in this manner could be an insult to Jews and lead Jews to feel insulted and cause depression.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2013, at 23:58:12
In reply to Lou'sreply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-lyblguz, posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 18:32:54
> > But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
OK, it's nice when we can agree on something.
> We can now continue to another post.> > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
> The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
Wait, what you heard him saying was Judaism might be a form of slavery?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2013, at 10:08:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2013, at 23:58:12
> > > But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
>
> OK, it's nice when we can agree on something.
>
> > We can now continue to another post.
>
> > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
>
> > The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
>
> Wait, what you heard him saying was Judaism might be a form of slavery?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...what you heard him saying is that Judaism might be a form of slavery?...]
It is much more than that. For what can be seen is plainly visible. Let us look at the whole statement:
[...I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God Himself...]. The poster was commenting on why he posted a subject line that read:
[...who brought you out of the land of Egypt...].
Then there is the poster's phrase, {...a treacherous form of slavery imposed by God Himself...}.
What can be seen is the libel to Jews by the word {treacherous}. The word means {a betrayal} or {deception}. What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers in particular but not limited to, is that the God that the Jews give service and worship to, that were delivered out of slavery in Egypt, is a God that can't be trusted, for what the poster wrote could mean that the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them. This is a false statement here by the poster and could lead a subset of readers to feel put down and could include non-Jews as well. We Jews trust the God that we give service and worship to and He has not betrayed us.
The questions that I use here in these posts that a subset of readers could see you as validating the libel toward the Jews by the fact that the anti-Semitic statements remain unsanctioned, are:
A. Can the statement bring out hatred of the Jews or me as a Jew in a subset of reader's minds?
B. Can it be humiliating to Jews that read the statement in question?
C. Can the statement be seen, since it is unsanctioned, that you and up to six deputies are validating the libel toward the Jews?
D. Is the statement a part of a deliberate, hostile, behavior to falsely discredit Jews and put down Jews and me as a Jew here and humiliate me, by you and your deputies?
E. Are there posts by you and/or your deputies and any members that are in concert with you that a subset of readers could consider to be soliciting others to turn against me?
F. Could the anti-Semitic statements that put down/accuse Jews, that could be seen by a subset of readers as an extreme form of psychological abuse, cause depression and increased suicidal ideation is a subset of Jewish children that read here?
Those are some of the criteria that I use to bring these to our discussion. And as long as the statements remain without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel toward the Jews contained in the statements. That could foster and encourage others to write the same against the Jews, and me as Jew, for you say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and that readers are to try to trust you and that one match could start a forest fire. IMHO, a subset of readers could think that if there is a statement that puts down Jews , and you will not post a repudiation to it, them they could think that it is supportive to post what could put down Jews.
I am asking for you to accept the opportunity that you have now to post in the thread where the statement in question appears, that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and that it is not in accordance with your policy to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
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.