![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 109 to 133 of 142. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:05
In reply to Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2013, at 12:30:00
Why didn't originally just post that you felt hurt, rather than bring that post up for years and years and years in an accusatory way asking for sanction? Not to mention accusing deputies for years and years, even after they were former deputies for years and had no way of doing anything for years, of being anti-semitic in not sanctioning the post.
Did you read where I explained that we continually asked for and did not get guidance as to Dr. Bob's wishes with regard to the faith board? Why continue to accuse us?
Was I wrong about the attitudes towards holding grudges in Judaism?
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:34:51
I'm willing to let go of the fact that you have accused us for years and years and years of anti-semetism and said that Muslims might kill us for not sanctioning that post.
All I'm asking you to do is to refrain from accusations against me, and against former deputies, in the future. I'm not even asking you to let it go, or to have a generous spirit and not hold grudges. I'm just asking you to refrain from actions that Dr. Bob would not have allowed from anyone else.
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:38:19
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ecclesia » Dinah, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 12:38:19
I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. The only current deputy, so far as I know, hasn't been involved on Babble for some time, so you couldn't be referring to her. And the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go and treat you with all the respect I'd show someone who hadn't accused me for years. So I'm not asking you to let it go yourself and have a generous spirit, I'm not even asking you to refrain from accusing us in your own mind. I am merely asking you not to separately state us in your accusations.
Of course, I might still be momentarily angry should you, in my opinion, be uncivil to others. But, again, I don't hold grudges for past actions.
Dr. Bob's actions are ongoing.
Posted by Phillipa on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:09
In reply to Clarification, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:03:15
That is the way I also interpreted the post. That you do have friends but Lou doesn't so he needs protection. Interesting as I used to email with Lou. And he sounds so different when he asks for a favor? Phillipa
Posted by Willful on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:10
In reply to Re: Clarification » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on December 14, 2013, at 18:50:43
I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
Willful
I
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:11
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 11:51:33
> Any other ideas?
Accept the world.
Nurture patience and tolerance. (I continue to work on this).
Most people have opinions for which they are emotionally invested. Forgive them.
Some people come to embrace a religion with great zeal and subscribe to a belief that theirs represents the one and only Truth.
Lou Pilder - I recommend that you study Islam more closely, especially the definition of infidel and how they are to be treated.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:11
In reply to Re: Clarification, posted by Willful on December 14, 2013, at 23:20:47
> I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
>
> I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
>
> But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
>
> Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
>
> Willful
>
> IFriends,
It is written here,[...a baseless stereotype...].
This is a welcome statement to me here if what the poster intends is what psychologists define as {denial} tactics and {repression}.
And readers, you may not understand the dynamics of all of this in relation to that there are years of antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and also statements that not only put down Jews, but Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions, and I guess those people that belong to those religions, that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as well.
I intend to bring out and show here how there is orchestration by the fact that the administration can control the content here by either sanctioning or not statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings or even statements that could project hatred toward Jews if allowed to be considered by a subset of readers as supportive here. And by the fact that there are years of outstanding notifications from me, that fact could show how antisemitism can be fostered in a community by a subset of readers interpreting the anti-Semitic statements that stand, as that they will be good for this community as a whole to remain standing as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community because Mr Hsung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. The anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand can indeed stereotype Jews, and the fact that they are allowed to stand over my years of objections points to a more difficult job for me to stop this site from being allowed to promote hatred in any form. My friends, the notifications go to the deputies, there can be discussion among them, the deputies have training from Mr . Hsiung, And it doesn't matter to me why the notifications are outstanding. The deputies have the authority to sanction posts or not. They do not have to, but I do not see any edict from Mr. Hsiung that says that they can't if they want to.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:12
In reply to Loui' response-beyclezpstaireeotype » Willful, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 10:31:51
> > I'm wondering what makes us think we know whether Lou has friends. Does Bob have some relationship with Lou outside of the one that appears here on psychobabble, that gives him greater information about whether Lou has friends, and whether, in fact, Lou needs more protection?
> >
> > I don't see that someone needs more protection simply because they've been allowed to say untrue and distressing things to /about us here. Maybe by virtue of that, Lou has few friends-- although I seem to have read posts on the Med board that are supportive of him -- so I"m not even sure that is true.
> >
> > But even if it were-- who knows if Lou feels the need of friends-- he certainly doesn't appear to from his actions here-- or of protection-- or of any greater compassion than any of us.
> >
> > Who among us claims to be able to "know" what Lou needs-- a claim that I think is either a baseless stereotype or an overestimation of the claimers insight into what other people really want and need.
> >
> > Willful
> >
> > I
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...a baseless stereotype...].
> This is a welcome statement to me here if what the poster intends is what psychologists define as {denial} tactics and {repression}.
> And readers, you may not understand the dynamics of all of this in relation to that there are years of antisemitic statements being allowed to stand and also statements that not only put down Jews, but Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions, and I guess those people that belong to those religions, that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as well.
> I intend to bring out and show here how there is orchestration by the fact that the administration can control the content here by either sanctioning or not statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings or even statements that could project hatred toward Jews if allowed to be considered by a subset of readers as supportive here. And by the fact that there are years of outstanding notifications from me, that fact could show how antisemitism can be fostered in a community by a subset of readers interpreting the anti-Semitic statements that stand, as that they will be good for this community as a whole to remain standing as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community because Mr Hsung states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. The anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand can indeed stereotype Jews, and the fact that they are allowed to stand over my years of objections points to a more difficult job for me to stop this site from being allowed to promote hatred in any form. My friends, the notifications go to the deputies, there can be discussion among them, the deputies have training from Mr . Hsiung, And it doesn't matter to me why the notifications are outstanding. The deputies have the authority to sanction posts or not. They do not have to, but I do not see any edict from Mr. Hsiung that says that they can't if they want to.
> LouFriends,
There are numerous psychological tactics being used here that may be unbeknownst to you. They are plainly visible to me and could be brought out to some degree by Willful here as a start. Another psychological aspect is what is known as {projection} which I intend to expose here as we go along. The important thing here is that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand that I have shown could cause hatred toward the Jews to be promoted here. This hatred could be transferred to others and M.r Hsiung does not disagree with me in that respect. The hatred could manifest itself into cyberhate that could go into schools to be taken as supportive by a subset of readers and Jewish children and Islamic children and other children that could be depicted as those that belong to a religion that is not centered in Christ to be in some way considered to be in the worst by reading what is allowed to stand here.
I can stop the fire of hate from spreading by getting Mr Hsiung to post to threads where anti-Semitic statements and other statements that put down those of other faiths are notated as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and are not in accordance with Mr. Hsiung's drafted rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths. I consider those that are in concert with Mr. Hsiung to allow those statements in question to have no immunity regardless of even if Mr. Hsiung held them back from posting their objections, and I do not know if that is what Dinah is wanting to mean here, for if that is true, then they could have resigned at that time.
Here is one way that antisemitism can be advanced, fostered and promoted by Mr. Hsiung by examining these two posts.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
Posted by baseball55 on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:13
In reply to Lou's response-the psycholy that is plainly visibl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2013, at 14:44:50
Why is this on the psychology board? Can't we move this to administration. The psychology board has always been a refuge for me and not an arena of conflict. Please move this
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:46:52
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 19:01:14
Repost:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056278.html
--------------------------------------------
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 alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 21:28:06
> 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?perhaps i misunderstood.
i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
(of course i do appreciate that there are immense difficulties with respect to situations-under-descriptions / situations-from-perspectives etc etc etc. yet another way to get paralyzed...)
Posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 22:47:29
> i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on December 15, 2013, at 22:51:04
> > i was saying that it was a shame that one couldn't be sure that the world was better off for your having made that intervention on it.
> I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. Is it a shame that people are not capable of recognizing my help or that I am incapable of making helpful interventions?
ah. neither of those. i think i mis-understood you.
i was thinking on why some people on some occasions hurt others in the name of protecting someone else.
i went off on my own tangent and wasn't really connecting with what you were saying. sorry 'bout that.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 15, 2013, at 23:24:11
it is hard...
i have recently come around to the view that failing to punish defectors is itself a form of defection. because of tragedy of commons type situations.
only...
perhaps now i'm coming to see that this may not be so.
i went to a talk on trust. part of it was about what was required for trust. to be competent. to recognise that another depended on us to act on that competence. to then act from the basis of recognising another depended on us to act on that competence. roughly... that was sort of what i took from the idea.
one can fail to be trusworthy because one isn't competent. this isn't necessarily bad. i am an incompetent murderer. my incompetence doesn't make me morally reprehensible or anything like that. but you shouldn't trust me to be competent in that sphere. and i shouldn't signal that i am competent in that sphere.
so competence.
recognition of dependence. sometimes we drop the ball because we didn't realise that others were relying or counting on us. i think i do this often. i think the idea is that here also it isn't about being morally reprehensible. it is another kind of incompetence. it isn't about morality, though.
anyway... point being... maybe we don't need to punish defectors. defectors... perhaps their defection is better explained by the above (and perhaps more kinds of) incompetence. and fixing up the incopmetencies would be something like 'giving them the skills' to contribute to society appropriately. people... well... it does take time to learn who the reliable signallers etc are. that is why it takes a year or so to settle in to a new environment. and why moving all the time is so hard... because unless you are connected people will typically assume you aren't particularly trustworthy. or at least... other people typically improve their opinion of me in time. or perhaps i find a better niche for myself with time or... whatever.
tangent?
there was stuff about signalling, too. and how some people are reliable (trusworthy ha!) signallers of competence and promises while others are... perhaps not.
anyway. i felt more at peace about my having dropped the ball rather with respect to my thesis... mostly because of the later. perhaps a bit because of the former. i see that half the battle with people is getting reliable signals out of them... perhaps because people fail to recognise the function of signalling... due to inability, yeah. not a moral failing...
it was a nice talk, yeah.
anyway... it has me thinking on incompetence (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one actually can and cannot do) and recognition of the needs of others (not as a moral failing - just in terms of what one can perceive with respect to that).
and thinking about me
(memememememe)
was all.
no judgement (especially moral!) on you...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:10:32
(this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)
Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 6:40:40
In reply to Re: Would you expect the same of other media?, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 0:58:27
> (this is some version of me being traumatised by conference. still processing... decompressing...)
I am still processing and decompressing from reading your posts. :-) They certainly provoke thought!
- Scott
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56
In reply to Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Dinah on December 15, 2013, at 21:56:04
I have one: It seems entirely logical and appropriate for an admin to move the posts containing references to anti-semitism, etc. to the faith board where they belong.
Posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas?, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 9:13:56
I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 21:53:35
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » Moishe Pipik, posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 20:12:09
> I agree and add that any post with reference to anti-semeticism posted on any board be redirected to Faith. Should have happened before. That board is not being used from what I've seen. Phillipa
Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate. It has no more place on the Faith board as does discussions of racism and apartheid.
The Faith forum is moderated differently than the other boards. It helps to review the preamble at the top of the Faith board to understand its personality and how it works.
Of course, the judging of the appropriateness of posts on the Faith board is the role of administration, and therefore belong on the Administration board."Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs."
Lou Pilder has some legitimate questions based upon the verbiage in the quote cited above. However, I thought they had been ruled upon a long time ago. If Dr. Bob is willing to revisit issues regarding statements of exclusivity to be found in the writings and philosophies of some religions, it might be more constructive to comment on the philosophy of the Faith board and its operation.
"Nobody is right if everybody is wrong" - Stephen Stills
I often refer to this lyric when I feel the need to exercise tolerance. It allows me to focus on the positive aspects of a religion so that I may profit from them and incorporate them into my belief system.
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » Phillipa, posted by SLS on December 16, 2013, at 21:53:35
>Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate.
Could it be either or both?
Wasn't it faith for Hitler? A kind of revelation?
Posted by Phillipa on December 16, 2013, at 22:33:26
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » SLS, posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01
Sigi it just keeps going on and on I don't think there is an answer no idea why I even replied on this thread. Religion is not my thing nor is hate. PJ
Posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » SLS, posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01
> >Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate.
>
> Could it be either or both?It can be based upon religious doctrine and faith in that doctrine, but the the antisemitism itself is still an intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people. Without the hate, there is no antisemitism - there are only difference.
> Wasn't it faith for Hitler? A kind of revelation?I don't think so.
He got pissed off for not being admitted to a Viennese art school that was predominantly Jewish. Also, he became enamored of the policies and philosophy of the mayor of Vienna, who was antisemitic. He learned antisemitism outside the church (which he never attended). I believe his hate and segregation of Jews was more racial and cultural and based upon stereotypes rather than on differences in religious doctrine. Although born into Catholicism, he found this religion not to his liking and ridiculed it. I don't know to what degree he believed in any religion. His tolerance of Christianity was probably more political than religious.
Lou Pilder is critical of the following passage to be found in the New Testament:
John 14:6
New King James Version (NKJV)
"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
How do you interpret this? Do you agree with Lou Pilder that Dr. Bob ought to sanction against the posting of these word? I don't. I think it should be allowed to be cited by a poster as long is not directed at people personally.
I don't fully understand Dr. Bob's feelings on this anymore, but I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
As opposed to:
2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1. If it is not civil, how would you word the description of one's belief in the biblical passage I cited?
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 17:24:35
In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? » sigismund, posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10
> I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
>
> I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
>
> You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.> Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
>
> Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
>
> DinahPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
> > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
>
> 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?
>
> DinahNo, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
> What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
>
> - ScottFor one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
> As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
>
> Moishe Pipik> Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
>
> DinahI consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
> I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
>
> DinahYes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
> 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.
>
> 10derheartFrom another thread:
> > I see your point of view as:
> >
> > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> >
> > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> >
> > Whereas my point of view is:
> >
> > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> >
> > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> >
> > Reasonable people can disagree, right?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
> when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
>
> DinahI like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
> > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> 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.
>
> - ScottFrom another thread:
> > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> >
> > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> >
> > 1. not sling it back
> > 2. shield themselves
> > 3. help others shield themselves
> > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > 5. express how they feel
> > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > 7. support the slingerhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
--
> I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
>
> 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
>
> As opposed to:
>
> 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
>
> If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
>
> - ScottYou're right, I see #1 as like:
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
> > People should have one God and no others before him.
which I don't consider OK:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
--
> I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
>
> I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
> 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.
>
> But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
>
> My fury is now against Dr. Bob.Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
> I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
>
> So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
>
> DinahIf you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2013, at 16:37:35
In reply to Re: so much distress, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 17:24:35
> > I notified you. You did nothing. I think you were even clear that you weren't going to do anything.
> >
> > I just as well send messages into space as notify the administrators.
> >
> > You know that I used to be one of Lou's biggest supporters. It's you who played the biggest role in changing that.
>
> > Don't you realize that by saying only Lou can hurt others as much as he wants, but shouldn't be asked to stop, you are creating resentment?
> >
> > Don't you realize that by incrementally allowing Lou to say more and more what is in his heart, you are encouraging him to say things that are in his own best interests to remain unsaid in public?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you see someone hurt others, please use the "notify administrators" button:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
>
> However, notifying me just means I'll be aware. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily act. I may have a different point of view. I realize that could create frustration and resentment.
>
> I'm thinking about what's in the board's best interests. I can't know what's in Lou's best interests.
>
> Why are you no longer one of Lou's biggest supporters? Because of his posts? Could you support the person even if you don't support the behavior?
>
> > > Dinah has you to protect her, but Lou has no one. So I need to protect him.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> No, when I said I needed to protect him, I didn't mean from enforcement of the civility guidelines.
>
> > What is it that you need to protect Lou from?
> >
> > - Scott
>
> For one thing, from accusations and put-downs.
>
> > As for correcting "misinformation", who is truly qualified to even identify what is misinformation and what is not?
> >
> > Moishe Pipik
>
> > Dr. Bob has openly declared his intent not to administrate against Lou.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I consider myself qualified to identify that as misinformation. I haven't openly declared my intent not to administrate against Lou.
>
> > I just want the accusations to STOP. Is that so f*ck*ng much to ask?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Yes, it's too much to ask me to stop Lou from posting. Is it too much to ask you to accept what you cannot change?
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > I see your point of view as:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are accusations.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = not caring that you be treated with respect.
> > >
> > > Whereas my point of view is:
> > >
> > > 1. Lou's posts are hypothetical scenarios of low probability.
> > >
> > > 2. Allowing Lou to keep posting = treating him with respect.
> > >
> > > Reasonable people can disagree, right?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1056318.html
>
> > when you are more polite to me then I will be more polite to you.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I like that: a politeness for a politeness. Not an eye for an eye. There's a higher standard here, however:
>
> > > Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> > 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.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> From another thread:
>
> > > Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
> > >
> > > A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
> > >
> > > 1. not sling it back
> > > 2. shield themselves
> > > 3. help others shield themselves
> > > 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> > > 5. express how they feel
> > > 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> > > 7. support the slinger
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20130930/msgs/1055937.html
>
> --
>
> > I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:
> >
> > 1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > As opposed to:
> >
> > 2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."
> >
> > If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> You're right, I see #1 as like:
>
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, whereas I see #2 as like:
>
> > > People should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> --
>
> > I can't, and wouldn't even want to, grow a thick skin
> >
> > I can and do accept the fact that very few people in the world would actually say they like me.
>
> Acceptance is good, but questioning is, too. Are you sure that's a fact? I like you. I suppose we both could be right, I could be one of very few.
>
> May I ask why you don't want to grow a thick skin?
>
> > 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.
> >
> > But my fury with you would have abated had you refrained from making further ... remarks about me personally or about former deputies in general.
> >
> > My fury is now against Dr. Bob.
>
> Thank you for choosing one of the above options (#5) and using I-statements.
>
> > I would accept "Administration" even, in place of Dr. Bob and deputies and former deputies. ... the former deputies understand the situation with Dr. Bob and the faith board, so it wouldn't occur to us that you meant us.
> >
> > So if you use the term "Administration" even if you in your heart mean "former deputies" and "deputies" when you are making accusations, I will let my anger with your previous accusations go
> >
> > Dinah
>
> If you can accept that in his heart he includes former deputies, and in your heart you feel you didn't do anything wrong, why does it matter what terms he uses?
>
> If you feel his statements could arouse perceptions of you that are false and decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which you are held, you and he may have something in common.
>
> BobFriends,
There are a lot of psychological tactics being used here that you could be unbeknownst of. And I think that if you are in darkness, that you could be freed and be led into a marvelous light if you knew the truth, for it has been revealed to me that the truth can make one free.
Now it is written here,[...notifying me just means that I will be aware. It doesn't mean that I'll necessarily act...]. Oh yeah? Let us look at this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
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.