![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 84 to 108 of 142. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » Moishe Pipik, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:23:57
And you should have been here long enough to know that I would treat Lou well enough should he stop years of accusing former deputies of conspiring with Dr. Bob towards antisemitic acts. I wonder how you'd feel after years and years of accusations? I don't really remember you responding particularly well to accusations.
It hurts me that you feel that way, and it hurts me that Dr. Bob feels that way.
Why does anyone think I want Lou punished, or to be treated badly by anyone. I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:49:20
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
i think those statements probably are related. i used to feel baffled and confused a lot reading his posts. i don't feel that way anymore. i've stopped trying to understand them. i feel a bit bad about that (that i can't be supportive to him), but there it is.
what else would he post about? you say that what you post about lou doesn't affect how other people view him - only how they view you. why can't you similarly see that the things that lou posts about bob or you or deputies or administration or god or what ever doesn't affect how other people view those things. it mostly affects how people feel about lou. it mostly seems to have... alienated everyone from him except for bob. and you think that if he is unable to change his posting behaviour to tow your line he should lose even that?
i think... maybe lou can't stop. like how people with tourette's have offensive language outbursts sometimes. lou isn't utilizing his behaviour to muster a group of supporters... his behaviour seems to be alienating most everyone. i don't know how he does off the boards... i don't expect things go very much better.
i think... you are capable of greater trust. to see that the majority of posters or readers... or... the posters / readers whose opinions matter... aren't so fickle as to make negative or hostile judgements about you (deputies, administration, or bob) on the basis of taking considerable time parsing lengthy posts. especially if there fairly persistently are false positives about wolves... most people... learn to ignore the alarm. or... wonder if the alarm is tracking something different.
i don't know. but i'm glad that bob can interact with lou positively. and i'm sad that others won't. because i'm not at all sure that lou can change his behaviour much more than he has already.
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 20:28:27
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress, posted by alexandra_k on December 14, 2013, at 14:49:20
> it mostly seems to have... alienated everyone from him except for bob.
Cause and effect? Personal responsibility?
Sometimes, I treat Lou Pilder as an adult. I realize that this is magnanimous of me, but I figured someone should. Adults experience negative consequence for some of their behaviors. Often, these consequences include alienation.
> and you think that if he is unable to change his posting behaviour to tow your line he should lose even that?
Are you accusing Dinah of behaviors that would lead others to become antisemitic?
Hasn't Mr. Pilder already done this to all of the former deputies?
In the past, Dinah has acted singularly and with vehemence to advocate for Lou Pilder. I can't speak for her to describe how she feels now, but she does not seem to advocate for him in the same way anymore. But then again, Lou Pilder has changed his posting behavior over the years. He was allowed to. There was no moderation.
I sincerely would like for you to be more vocal about your reactions to Lou Pilder's posts as they are being submitted. Dinah and I and others have been doing this - mostly in a civil manner - for quite a few years. I'm sure you know this. I know that you are under no obligation to do participate, but just in case you wanted to get involved...
What did you think when you read Lou Pilder's admonishing parents not to allow their children to swallow drugs that contained benzene rings in them; that to do so would result in acts of suicide or homicide.
Just curious.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on December 14, 2013, at 21:12:02
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 14:31:28
>>Why does anyone think I want Lou punished, or to be treated badly by anyone. I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
Exactly what I also have been asking for all along. It's **why** it's so infuriating for Dr. Bob to divert into rabbit-holes every damn thing said instead of just saying: yes or no - is being called an anti-semite and fosterer of antisemitism uncvil at Babble???????? If so, will it be stopped?
His silence and obfuscation shows the answers to both is apparently "no." Whcih I guess (STUPIDLY) I find so hard t believe of Dr. Bob I actually keep asking....idiot me.
I am perfectly willing to treat Lou like I HAVE ALWAYS TREATED HIM and to protect him from others which I have done TIME AND TIME AGAIN, to include sanctioning and even blocking others because they were rude to Lou[WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE (intentionally) UNCIVIL POST BY ME TO LOU IN 10 YEARS].
ALL I've been saying to Dr. Bob is how simple this is...yet he refuses to even say - privately or publicly- that what Lou says about deputies past or present IS accusatory at all.
This is beyond ridiculous. Lou has not always accused in this way, so why should I jump to the conclusion he can't restrain himself now?
Posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 23:01:04
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on December 14, 2013, at 21:12:02
> This is beyond ridiculous. Lou has not always accused in this way, so why should I jump to the conclusion he can't restrain himself now?
Lou Pilder can restrain himself, especially when civility is circumscribed and enforced. He has restrained himself in the past, especially when posting blocks loomed as a moderator's sanction. Why should he restrain himself now, though? He has his goals. He pushes the envelope further and further to pursue them. He does not appear to respond to positive reinforcement. So, it is likely that he will continue to blame deputies for allowing for the arousal of antisemitism.
I waffle on this whole thing. I wish to see Dr. Bob enhance the quality of Lou Pilder's life. I also want to see Dr. Bob enhance the quality of experiences in the Psycho-Babble community as a whole. Ideally, the quality of life of the whole can be enhanced by enhancing the life of the individual. But what happens when the behavior of that individual remains problematic?
Today was a good day, I think.
I encourage Lou Pilder to continue his discourse with Dr. Bob until all of his issues are resolved. I encourage Dr. Bob to continue his discourse with Lou Pilder while refining his concept of civility and how best to promote it. It looks to me like this has already been established as the doctor's plan. Of course, I could be wrong. Either way, I encourage Dr. Bob to help the community understand his present actions and perhaps describe how he would like to see Psycho-Babble operate in the future.
I understand that Dr. Bob does not owe anyone an explanation.
- Scott
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
In reply to Re: Sorry to see so much distress, posted by SLS on December 14, 2013, at 23:01:04
TV? Newspapers? Magazines? We all are exposed to endless messages, many of which are unwelcome, unsettling, annoying, shocking, etc..
Our choices in regard to most media (and PB IS media) are our own. If there is content we don't like, our choices are simple: Ignore the "offensive" stuff, or opt out of said media entirely. Would anyone here actually expect a TV or radio station to adjust their content to suit themselves? (I suppose there may well be some who write complaints, or editorials, although to no avail).
There is simply no end to the possibilities of being exposed to things we don't like, so is it reasonable or possible to have those sources custom-tailored in some way that's perfect for everyone? I don't think so. Yet, that is what's often asked in the Admin section.
Are there any other strategies that can allow PB members to remain PB members, yet be able to weather posters and posts that are tiresome, negative, hostile, whatever?
I'll add that I am a Jew, and the assertions of anti-semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense. But the poster can continue until he/she is blue in the face, because it IS nonsense, and I recognize it as such, and do not take it seriously.
Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 13:47:26
In reply to Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
> TV? Newspapers? Magazines? We all are exposed to endless messages, many of which are unwelcome, unsettling, annoying, shocking, etc..
>
> Our choices in regard to most media (and PB IS media) are our own. If there is content we don't like, our choices are simple: Ignore the "offensive" stuff, or opt out of said media entirely. Would anyone here actually expect a TV or radio station to adjust their content to suit themselves? (I suppose there may well be some who write complaints, or editorials, although to no avail).
>
> There is simply no end to the possibilities of being exposed to things we don't like, so is it reasonable or possible to have those sources custom-tailored in some way that's perfect for everyone? I don't think so. Yet, that is what's often asked in the Admin section.
>
> Are there any other strategies that can allow PB members to remain PB members, yet be able to weather posters and posts that are tiresome, negative, hostile, whatever?
>
> I'll add that I am a Jew, and the assertions of anti-semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense. But the poster can continue until he/she is blue in the face, because it IS nonsense, and I recognize it as such, and do not take it seriously.
>
> Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.Friends,
It is written here,[...assertions of anti-Semitism that have been posted are complete and utter nonsense...].
That conclusion posted by the member could be determined to be true or not by understanding what constitutes a statement that is anti-Semitic and also what constitutes a {policy} that is anti-Semitic and what constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and then examining the content here in regards to what is here as being applied to the definitions of generally accepted meanings of what constitutes anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism.
Here is a list of the generally accepted meanings of what constitutes anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that could be used for readers to make their own determination as to the veracity of the claim by the member here.
Lou
[ admin, 844756 ]
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 15:08:48
In reply to Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 15, 2013, at 10:47:22
> Note: If you feel the need to express your thinly-veiled hostility, knock yourself out - I will not respond.
Whatever it was that I expressed, it was by no means veiled. Besides, the "deeper waters" metaphor is yours, not mine. It is good of you to finally admit the hostility to be found in it. The irony is sad.
It is valuable to society that at least some people read things that upset them. It is a part of the process that leads to change.
Anyway, I hope you have elected to read this post despite your vow not to. I wanted you to know that your posts upset me. This is a good thing, though. It helps me to remember why I like myself so much.
Have a sunny day.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 16:31:37
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » Moishe Pipik, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 15:08:48
> It is valuable to society that at least some people read things that upset them. It is a part of the process that leads to change.
It can do. I went to a talk at conference that was about 'deeply held beliefs' (along with 5 candidates for what sorts of things those might be / how to characterize them). The issue was: How to get people thinking critically about them. And why it was that students scoring over 90% in their final critical reasoning exam (at least in part according to me! ha!) might not think critically when questioned by a philosopher... (Peter Singer's arguments against the habitual eating of factory farmed meat just because we happen to like the taste of its flesh).
Said they didn't want to think on it.
One idea was... That there needs to be a follow up critical thinking course. Maybe with psychology. To give students the tools they need to think critically.
Some things are too hard to look at...
It does seem important that some people look. But it seems more important that those who do look are those who have the tools to take what they have seen and do something constructive with it. For themself (their own conduct) yes. And perhaps to have some impact on the system to lessen harms...
But if one looks...
And becomes seriously distressed onself... To the point where one needs help... Without the skills to productively respond to what has been seen... Well... Better for all concerned if they didn't look. I would have thought. Otherwise it is adding to the problem rather than assisting in a solution.
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 16:49:20
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 16:31:37
> And becomes seriously distressed onself... To the point where one needs help... Without the skills to productively respond to what has been seen... Well...
I guess there is a balance in there somewhere. I don't like to see people in distress who have no sense of control.
> Better for all concerned if they didn't look.
Or is it a good thing that people get so upset that it calls others into action?
I keep thinking back on the American Revolution. Would Thomas Paine have written "Common Sense" without having been upset by what he read?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 17:21:55
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 16:49:20
> I guess there is a balance in there somewhere. I don't like to see people in distress who have no sense of control.
I don't think anybody likes that. Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation or does your distress / lack of skills prevent your helping?
In such a circumstance... I guess the idea is... Firstly... Do no harm.
> Or is it a good thing that people get so upset that it calls others into action?If that is what happens then that seems to be a good thing, yeah.
But sometimes people get so upset that the action of others can become more organized around alleviating their upset than on contributing positively towards the initial situation. In this case I would say that it would be better if the people hadn't looked / seen.
I think mostly people don't act appropriately because they lack the tools / skills, yeah. Being continually confronted by situations / circumstances where one feels powerless can be hard, yeah.
Unsustainable.
Need time out. For sure. Need... Need to not look sometimes. Otherwise... Too overwhelming.
I think there is truth to how you need to look after yourself BEFORE you can look after other people. Partly (mostly) why I couldn't actually do anything at all to help the people over on the north shore was because I didn't have space that I felt was properly my own to do my work (where my work makes me feel competent and productive and in control at least sometimes).
It simply might be the case that... In order to function I always need my own seclusion cell / apartment. To decompress. Without that... I can't face anything at all. I can't behave in an integrated way... Or maybe I can learn to feel competent, productive, and in control in a way that reduces the need for isolation. I don't know...
Point being... Most of my life has been / currently needs to be spent not looking at various things. Not that I have been particularly functional over the years... Looking / seeing more wasn't likely to have made me more functional, though, pretty sure on that. What I really needed: Was to be someplace quiet and pretty for a while. Where others could simply ignore me. Where the only ugly things I see... Are memories / possible futures inside of me...
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 18:03:05
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 17:21:55
> > I guess there is a balance in there somewhere. I don't like to see people in distress who have no sense of control.
> I don't think anybody likes that.I'm afraid you don't know enough people. :-(
> Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.
> ...or does your distress / lack of skills prevent your helping?
Whatever are the skills that I may lack, I like to think that they are sufficient to help others to some degree, and that I am improving upon them all the time.
> In such a circumstance... I guess the idea is... Firstly... Do no harm.
Should a policeman witness a rape and firstly do no harm to the rapist? I disagree with your sentiments here. As some people are exuberant to point out, I am not a doctor and have not taken the Hippocratic Oath. Even if I were a doctor, I would still attempt to harm a rapist were I to come upon such an act.
> > Or is it a good thing that people get so upset that it calls others into action?
> If that is what happens then that seems to be a good thing, yeah.
>
> But sometimes people get so upset that the action of others can become more organized around alleviating their upset than on contributing positively towards the initial situation. In this case I would say that it would be better if the people hadn't looked / seen.I guess every situation is different, as are the people who participate in them.
I can surely appreciate your need for having your own space. Fortunately, I have had this luxury.
I hope you find what you need, and that you can build your happiness around it.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 19:01:14
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 18:03:05
> > > I guess there is a balance in there somewhere. I don't like to see people in distress who have no sense of control.
> > I don't think anybody likes that.> I'm afraid you don't know enough people. :-(
Perhaps. Or perhaps there are an awful lot of people who can't look at someone on distress because they are themselves powerless in the face of such intensity of feeling. They get sucked into it and become just as stuck.
Perhaps there are an awful lot of people who can't look at someone in distress because even though the feeling doesn't paralyze them they don't have the requisite skills and / or power (due to circumstance, say) to do anything to help.
Perhaps there are an awful lot of people who act from the distress they caught from looking ... Well... To react from it. That is how you get cycles of t*t for tat... Wars and the like. He started it - no she started it - no he started it. I'd say this comes from a certain sort of incapacity. This later case... Is the most dangerous / harmful, I'd say.
The people who say they are helping but all they are doing is hurting.
> > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
> Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.That is a shame.
Some people think that happiness is intrinsically valuable. This is to say that a world would be better than another world (everything else being equal) if that first word had more happiness in it. What is interesting about this view is that it is fairly objective. It is fairly 'the view from nowhere'. Objectively... A world with more happiness in it is better than a world with less happiness in it (everything else being equal).
I like to think of it this way... To think that human beings have foresight etc etc etc to... Make the world a better place. To increase the good things in this world.
Not to merely participate in the process of contributing vengences and harms for... What? The thought that a world with retribution in it is somehow better? That doesn't sound like a better world to me, at all. Is this really what some people require to alleviate their suffering? Really? I... I feel sorry for their pain... But I will not help them in this way.
> I can surely appreciate your need for having your own space. Fortunately, I have had this luxury.
It might be (but it might not be) that I have a greater need for my own space than many people do. I suspect this is the case. I suspect that a consequence of this is that other people have greater need for different things. Things that I don't need so much of. Not sure what those other things are... I think they probably have to do with certain sorts of social interactions. Some people very much fear being left alone. I very much fear not being left alone.
> I hope you find what you need, and that you can build your happiness around it.
You too. And Dinah and Lou. And PC and 10. And... Everyone else.
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:28:06
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 19:01:14
Re: Distress
> > > Does your seeing it motivate you to do something to help the situation...
> > Yes. Whether or not I help the situation is a matter of perspective.
> That is a shame.
What is a shame?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:55:56
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2013, at 1:26:17
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055942.html
That's all I have to say about that. If this is going to be the "Let Lou insult whoever he wishes" site, then it will be that, and it's up to me to decide what to do about it.
I have.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:55:57
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 3:45:16
> > > Why can't I be included in the net of protection that Lou has with you? (You can't deny that you give him protection from other posters.)
> >
> > Think of me as a homeless shelter. You can't be included because you're not homeless.
>
> So you're saying that Babble is now being run for Lou and people as disturbed as Lou? And everyone else has to suck it? We're not nuts enough for you to give a crap about us?
>
> Got it. Bye.
>
>
Friends,
It is written above about me as being (redacted by respondent). The statement is false, for I am not disturbed and the statement could decrease the respect and confidence in which I am held. It could also induce hostile and disagreeable feelings toward me.
But it is much more than that. You see, by the nature of the rules here that one match could start a forest fire, a subset of readers could think that the statement about me is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, and worse, that it is supportive and even worse, that it will be good for this community as a whole for not only that statement to stand but for analogous statements that are also false, to be welcomed here about me that could be equally of such nature as to decrease the respect and regard in which I am held.
And even worse, there could be a subset of readers that could think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the false statement about my character since one match could start a forest fire and Mr. Hsiung does not wait to sanction statements.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:55:58
In reply to Lou's response-valdyhey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 10:32:04
> the statement could decrease the respect and confidence in which I am held.
No statement from me can decrease respect for you. My statements can only decrease others' respect for me.
You are the only person who can make choices to increase or decrease the respect others have for you.
You've said that former deputies have done things that could, in your opinion, lead to our kidnapping, imprisonment, and death. You have consistently for years accused us of antisemitic acts. Me. Someone who twice tried to convert to Judaism. You have stated that we would not act on your notifications, when the simple truth was that we would act against blatant statements against Judaism, but were unable to get Dr. Bob to clarify his Faith Board policies on statements like the ones you are complaining about in such a way that we could understand what we were to do. So in the absence of outright putdowns, we referred Faith Board decisions to him until we could understand what he wanted. You have accused us of not responding to your notifications, when you are not giving the full story of what happened. You have accused mothers of harming their children by following doctor's advice about medications. You even put "infanticide" in a post title, though you later apologized. Of course later you put "complicity" if I remember correctly in the subject line of a post about deputies and former deputies.
Dr. Bob has practically given you a carte blanche to post whatever you like. Why don't you ask him if you can post the remaining gates that, for whatever reason, you thought would be considered against board policy. We could ask Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob?
Dr. Bob's decision has reduced my respect for both you and him. Why don't you ask him to give you equal protection under Babble rules, and not make a special case just for you? Why do you think he does that, Lou? Why has he said he does it? He has compared it to a homeless shelter and said it's because he thinks you have no friends.
My statements were actually made as an interpretation of his words, not as a statement against you. He responded, in what might be seen as a clarification of my interpretation, that it was because you had no friends that he was refraining from sanctioning you for what others would be sanctioned for.
Do you want that special treatment? Does it make you feel good, or does it make you feel bad that Dr. Bob is doing that? I think it would make me feel very bad, very insulted, and I would demand that he not base his moderation on me out of sympathy for my lack of friends. I would demand that he respect me enough to treat me like he would anyone else. (In fact, I do.)
And of course, without regard to Dr. Bob's actions, when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:55:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response-valdyhey » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 10:55:32
It seems to me that that was what Dr. Bob was stating, and it seemed to me that he was stating it very openly and clearly.
If I misunderstood, I'm sure he will correct me.
Dr. Bob, are you saying that you will not enforce the same civility guidelines against Lou as you would against anyone else because Lou has no friends?
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:00
In reply to Clarification, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:03:15
I think that was not at all a polite thing to say about you.
I remember I once had a discussion with an adult about their childhood relationship with school and their parents.
The mother always excused his poor grades on the basis that he had learning disabilities.
The father would yell at him for not studying enough.
He told me that he wasn't at all hurt by his father's yelling, but he was immensely hurt by his mother's excusing.
That discussion was brought to my mind when I was reading Dr. Bob's statements.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:01
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 9:26:17
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055942.html
>
> That's all I have to say about that. If this is going to be the "Let Lou insult whoever he wishes" site, then it will be that, and it's up to me to decide what to do about it.
>
> I have.Friends,
It is written above about me as that the poster offers a fictitious name for the site here in quotes.
The suggestion by the poster could IMHO arouse perceptions of me that are false, for the statement could lead a subset of readers IMO to think that I am being humiliated by the suggestion of the poster as what the name of the site could be by involving my character in a way that I feel decreases the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held. Since there is not specified what the insults are, one could speculate that the insult could be anything that a write here. This could mean IMO to a subset of readers that my attempts to purge the anrtisemitic statements here are what the poster is referring to, but it is not known.
I am following the rules here as much as humanly possible and also abiding by the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
The fact that the statement in question stands, could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the statement that is about me since I am in discussion with Mr Hsiung about my efforts to get him to purge out the anti-Semitic statements and those that insult Islam, Hinduism and other religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:02
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
Lou, I have enough respect for you to believe you can abide by site guidelines that apply to everyone.
I believe you can refrain from accusing Babblers of antisemitic acts. I believe you can refrain from telling former deputies that they may be killed by Muslims. I believe you can refrain from saying that Muslims might kill former deputies. I will always believe that statement was uncivil to them and to us. I believe you can post with more compassion for mothers whose children are on psychiatric drugs and for patients taking psychiatric drugs.
I give you the honor of believing you can and should be treated like anyone else.
You can complain to Dr. Bob if you also believe you should be treated the same as everyone else.
But if you believe that you should get special treatment because of who you are, then....
Don't you see that my responses were to Dr. Bob about his policies far more than they were about you? It just so happens that those policies were about only you. Don't you see that the majority of my anger is with Dr. Bob, and at least some of it is for the insult to you?
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:02
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
I was furious with you for saying that deputies might be killed by Muslims for passing to Dr. Bob rulings that we were unsure how he would have us treat. We were deputies for Dr. Bob, and it was our *responsibility* to moderate as he would moderate. We tried endlessly to get him to clarify the board policies. You had a very long thread with him about one or two statements, so I'm sure you'll understand that he did not give us clear guidance about that statement and statements like it. I knew myself to be innocent of your charges that you were now coupling with the threat of kidnapping and death.
But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further uncivil remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general. I don't hold grudges. I think holding grudges might be against Jewish tenets, per my understanding from my extensive readings of Rabbi Harold Kushner and Rabbi Karyn Kedar, who were responsible for my strong attraction to Judaism, on top of my lifetime pro-Semitic outlook learned from my Mormon youth.
My fury is now against Dr. Bob. And if you refrain from being rude to me, it will remain that way. It is not a past action on his part.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:03
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 11:10:57
If you wish to increase the respect of Babblers, might I suggest that you post in such a way as to not be accusatory, and to instead be supportive? That would do far more than I ever could say, or could ever not say.
It's not only civil, it's smart policy.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response-phalzlyt/valdey » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:34:30
What would you say, were you Jewish, to a poster who posted in a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church "A church not centered in Christ".
I've heard that statement often enough, and always in context of Christian churches that were focused on money or prestige or whatever, to think it possible that it was meant in that context and not meant as a put-down of non-Christian religions, but I also recognize that it could be read as pertaining to non-Christian religions as well.
I think I'd say something like
"I understand the spirit of your list, and agree with many of the items. But the item about a church not being centered in Christ makes me, as Jew, feel like you are not respecting my faith. If you meant that Christian churches should center their churches around Christ, then could you clarify that? Or possibly substitute the word "God" or "Higher Power" so that the statement could be helpful to more of us?"
Any other ideas?
It seems like responding with one's personal feelings, when it is not likely that a put down was intended (more likely a narrow focus), is the best way to address the issue without accusation or bad feelings.
Were the original poster to respond negatively towards other religions, then notifications and accusations would be appropriate.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:05
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:51:33
> What would you say, were you Jewish, to a poster who posted in a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church "A church not centered in Christ".
>
> I've heard that statement often enough, and always in context of Christian churches that were focused on money or prestige or whatever, to think it possible that it was meant in that context and not meant as a put-down of non-Christian religions, but I also recognize that it could be read as pertaining to non-Christian religions as well.
>
> I think I'd say something like
>
> "I understand the spirit of your list, and agree with many of the items. But the item about a church not being centered in Christ makes me, as Jew, feel like you are not respecting my faith. If you meant that Christian churches should center their churches around Christ, then could you clarify that? Or possibly substitute the word "God" or "Higher Power" so that the statement could be helpful to more of us?"
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> It seems like responding with one's personal feelings, when it is not likely that a put down was intended (more likely a narrow focus), is the best way to address the issue without accusation or bad feelings.
>
> Were the original poster to respond negatively towards other religions, then notifications and accusations would be appropriate.Friends,
It is written above that there could be a post that has a list of ten items of the worst reasons for a church, " A church not centered in Christ".
Be advised that there is a post that I am objecting to here that puts down and insults Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all other religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, and I would say those that are members of them, that is not the same as the one Dinah hypothetically presents to you here.
The post that is in question has the top ten worst reasons {for organized religion}, not for a church, which is different from what is proposed here for your discussion.
What a subset of readers could think is that the statement divides humanity that are in organized religions into two groups and only those religions that have their agenda centered in Christ are exempt from being in the list of organized religions that their agenda is the worst.
Be advised that I think that Dinah's hypothetical post does not belong in this discussion, but in a separate thread of her own unless the word {church} is understood by responders. This is all because, {church} does not mean only Christian groups. The word {church} can be found in Hebrew scripture and it means to be a group of {called out} people by the God that the Jews give service and worship to. The Hebrew word that {church} comes from is knesiyah. It means the community, or a gathering of the community, and is translated as {church} in the Hebrew scripture.
The Greek word for the Hebrew is taken from the word {Eklisia} or spelled in different ways. The word, Eklisia, in Greek means {belonging to the Lord} which came from the word {kurios} in Greek.
All of those words have even further back words from different extinct languages that I have not the time here to discuss.
The point here is that {church} does not always mean only Christian groups and if the understanding of that is known then that could go a long way to help in anyone's response to Dinah here.
Lou
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.