![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 392 to 416 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2014, at 23:56:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:46:19
> The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member.
I'm OK with assuming everyone follows the FAQ or assuming not everyone does. If we assume everyone does, then the FAQ actually says:
> > Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others
which includes me. If we assume not everyone does, then someone could believe what was posted about you was accurate.
> But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
True, those are all possibilities. And another possibility, unless we assume everyone follows the FAQ, is that they could think what was posted about you was accurate.
> But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God.
Yes, that's a separate issue. But I see them as related. Since if you're not under any burden, then God didn't impose anything on you, and Jewish children won't think they have a bad God.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 10:02:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2014, at 23:56:17
> > The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member.
>
> I'm OK with assuming everyone follows the FAQ or assuming not everyone does. If we assume everyone does, then the FAQ actually says:
>
> > > Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others
>
> which includes me. If we assume not everyone does, then someone could believe what was posted about you was accurate.
>
> > But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
>
> True, those are all possibilities. And another possibility, unless we assume everyone follows the FAQ, is that they could think what was posted about you was accurate.
>
> > But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God.
>
> Yes, that's a separate issue. But I see them as related. Since if you're not under any burden, then God didn't impose anything on you, and Jewish children won't think they have a bad God.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting me or readers to think by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
Fill in the blanks:
D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 13:43:41
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2014, at 22:30:38
> Lou are you an attorney that works with discrimination of faiths? Just asking a question. Since we can't talk on here I never hear slander mentioned. Phillipa
Phillipa,
I am not an attorney. But I am an advocate for justice and consider discrimination because of religion as an abuse of power that is not good for this community as a whole, and not supportive, and not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
I consider the allowing of antisemitism to be posted here to be a component of hate, like a fire that could spread, and disrespectful to humanity itself for the hate could consume those that condone it. Anyone that condones the hate may think otherwise, but I say to you that it has been revealed to me that hate is death, death and darkness to the soul, and that the allowing to be posted of what could put down Jews could lead readers to think that hate is supportive here. I am here to dispel the darkness of the death of one's soul so that they can walk in the light of the living.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on January 6, 2014, at 20:30:15
In reply to Lou's reply-lytoflyvng » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 13:43:41
So you post to inform others of what you believe to be true even if it could be or might not be? Interesting. Well I don't dislike anyone, little green men, blue ones, or any religion as the USA grants us the right to worship in any way we chose. So I don't get it? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2014, at 22:39:22
In reply to Lou's rply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-mhalzphoar » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 10:02:38
> A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
False. It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
> B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
True. I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
> B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
True, that's possible. But it would require jumping to a conclusion (that it was supportive and good for the community). But you posting a reply could prevent jumping to that conclusion.
> C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
False. I'm concerned, which is why I'm trying to work out a reply to that post with you.
> D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
I believe that you posting a repudiation would address the issue more effectively than me posting a repudiation.
> E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
> F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
> G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2014, at 19:36:07
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2014, at 22:39:22
> > A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
>
> False. It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
>
> True. I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
>
> True, that's possible. But it would require jumping to a conclusion (that it was supportive and good for the community). But you posting a reply could prevent jumping to that conclusion.
>
> > C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
>
> False. I'm concerned, which is why I'm trying to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
>
> I believe that you posting a repudiation would address the issue more effectively than me posting a repudiation.
>
> > E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
>
> I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you...].
The elemaents that I would like to see in any reply are anything that you want to post so that it says that:
A. the statements in question are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and:
B. the statement is not in accordance with your rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours. If I was to post the repudiation, others could still post statements of the nature that the post could purport because I am not in authority to sanction what is not in accordance with a rule, for I can not be in place of the moderator.
Now what I am reading here could be that you will post the remedial action and together we will plan on what to post.
I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportive, for you say that support takes precedence and that unsanctioned posts could be seen by a subset of readers as being supportive and conducive to the civic harmony of this community. If I posted, I could only speak for myself and not put out the fire of hate, for I did not draft the rule. But if you posted the repudiation, you would be speaking from the one that drafted the rule, to put out the fire before it becomes a forest fire, that has the authority to put out the fire of hate that could still be burning because the statement remains unsanctioned.
And be it as it may be, I would like then to go to the next post in question where the poster offers a link to anti-Semitic statements in John 5 even if you want to discuss this statement in question further, for we could recess for this one for now and come back to it later.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2014, at 13:56:05
In reply to correction: Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:50:16
> > > > > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > > > > [..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...].
> > > > > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > > > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > > > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > > > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > > > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > > > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > > > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > > > > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> > > > The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> > > > What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> > > > Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> > > > So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> > > >
> > > > correction,
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung and friends,
> > You wrote,[...Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking...].
> > Let us look at the statement in question that puts down, in particular but not limited, Jews.
> > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member. There is nothing that I know of in the record that requires anyone to post a repudiation of libel against another, or a repudiation of a statement that puts down Jews or those of other faiths, for the TOS by Mr. Hsiung is that one does not have to post anything for Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies to sanction a post because Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire, so no one has to complain before he and/or his deputies act. This is established here by:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2004112/msgs/307041.html
> > But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
> > But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God. The statement by the poster could be seen by Jewish readers and readers of other Abrahamic faiths as a mocking and taunting that ridicules those that are Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. The statement as I read it insults the God in question and is self-evident by the nature of the generally accepted understanding of what {put down} means. And to allow this to continue could induce to the next reader of that post what could seriously mislead the reader into thinking that the statement in question is supportive and that it alright to post what could put down Jews in spite of the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, for after all, Mr. Hsiung also states that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. If so, That IMHHHHHHO distorts the intent of the mission of the forum and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose.
> > So be it as you want to be, Mr. Hsiung. And you say that you will take responsibility for what is posted here. And I say that by you allowing the statement to stand without repudiation by yourself, readers could think that you are ratifying what the statement could purport. This IMHO could encourage third-party posts of the same nature, which the record clearly shows in that from this post in question on, other posts that put down Jews and others and those post that are anti-Semitic are what in question in this discussion.
> > Now I would like to go on to that post where the poster offers the link to John 5 where I have listed the verses that are anti-Semitic. And I am modifying my request in that I now would like for you to use the following format that you used in the other post in this discussion, if you agree that the verses that I have listed are anti-Semitic, which is:
> > [ admin, 1050578 ]
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> correction:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
>Mr Hsiung,
You wrote that by me posting a repudiation that it would address the issues more effectively. You also agree that a subset of readers could feel humiliated and put down and kill themselves after reading the post in question, such as Jewish children and those of other Abrahamic faiths.
You also state that readers would have to jump to a conclusion concerning that what is seen in the statement to be supportive and good for the community. I do not think so, because your own terms of service state that you do what will be good for this community as a whole, and that you do not wait to sanction a post even if no one complained because one match could start a forest fire. You also state that unsanctioned posts could be thought by readers to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. There are even other posts by you that establish that what is seen as being un notated by you , that the statements that stand are considered by you to be supportive, for you state that support takes precedence. I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you. And more than that, you state that you will attend to notifications but you give yourself the option of attending to notifications from me as stating that you think that it might be good for members to see that you do not have to respond to me. All of that, makes it easy IMHO to conclude without making any jump to that conclusion. And the fact that we are in discussion for you to post what could put out the fire of hate and that you are taking the position that you are waiting for me to post something, contradicts your claim that you do not wait to sanction a post because that one match could start a forest fire so waiting for another to complain or give you a better explanation to this (such as you claiming that I could state it better so you will wait for me) could allow the fire to escalate. So readers can make their own determination as to if you are concerned or not by reading what you have posted here.
The other aspect of that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation because you want a better statement from me in place of yours, brings up that readers could see the post standing so that they could think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the libel against me and the Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. This could encourage other defamatory postings against me and Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. And as time runs, more posts of the same nature could arise and a development of hatred toward me and the Jews and the others could be fostered here by you and your deputies allowing what you admit is a statement that puts down Jews and that you are concerned about it. Yet today, the statement stands and the fire of hate is still burning.
By you stating here that you are waiting to post to the statement in question as a repudiation of it, but that I would address the issues more effectively, could be seen by a subset of readers as that your contention misrepresents your own terms of service, for you state that you do not wait to put out a match that could start a forest fire so that your contention distorts the intent of your administration of the site as to protect people from statements that humiliate, ridicule and otherwise put down a subset of readers. It is plainly visible that the evidence here is that by you saying that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation could be thought IMHO by a subset of readers that you are attempting to shift the blame of any harm that could come to a reader that sees the statement in question as supportive because it stands, to me, because I have not posted my own repudiation to the libel against me and the Jews. This could be thought also that you are shifting the {responsibility} for sanctioning the post to the users of this site which some readers could see that you are attempting to make an argument that you are immune from invoking your own rules in statements that put down those of other faiths in an attempt to subvert your own rules. But the post puts down all Jews and all Islamic people and all Christians and all others that have their faith as being in an Abrahamic religion while you have a rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths. I can only speak for myself and because of your prohibitions posted to me here, I am prevented from addressing the libel toward me and the Jews in the manner that I need to in order for me to repudiate the defamation toward the Jews and me as a Jew here. And your TOS state to use the notification procedure and I have followed those rules as can be seen by the years of outstanding notification and requests that if you had responded to them, IMHO the fire of hatred toward me and the Jews and others here would have not been allowed to start.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2014, at 22:46:32
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-psbvrt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2014, at 13:56:05
> I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you.
I said that because other conclusions are possible. For example, readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours.
> I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportiveHere's another idea. I see 2 issues. Maybe we should deal with them separately:
1. What was said about you.
You could repudiate that.
2. Whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God.
I could address whether saying a God imposes burdens is putting down that God. It seems that's one of the questions raised by the Book of Job:
Misery
by Joan Acocella
December 16, 2013
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/12/16/131216crbo_books_acocellaBob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2014, at 11:55:13
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2014, at 22:46:32
> > I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you.
>
> I said that because other conclusions are possible. For example, readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
>
> > Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours.
> > I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportive
>
> Here's another idea. I see 2 issues. Maybe we should deal with them separately:
>
> 1. What was said about you.
>
> You could repudiate that.
>
> 2. Whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God.
>
> I could address whether saying a God imposes burdens is putting down that God. It seems that's one of the questions raised by the Book of Job:
>
> Misery
> by Joan Acocella
> December 16, 2013
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/12/16/131216crbo_books_acocella
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I could address whether saying a God imposes burdens is putting down that God...].
You could address the post in question in the manner that you say that you could here. And I would like you to go ahead and post what you say you could, and then I could have the opportunity to post my response to you.
In the mean time, if you are preparing what you could post, I would like to go on to the other post that offers a link to anti-Semitic verses in John 5.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2014, at 19:42:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-psbvrt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2014, at 13:56:05
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > > > > > [..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...].
> > > > > > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > > > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > > > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > > > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > > > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > > > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > > > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > > > > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > > > > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > > > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > > > > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > > > > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > > > > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > > > > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > > > > > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > > The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> > > > > The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> > > > > What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> > > > > Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > > now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> > > > > So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> > > > >
> > > > > correction,
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung and friends,
> > > You wrote,[...Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking...].
> > > Let us look at the statement in question that puts down, in particular but not limited, Jews.
> > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member. There is nothing that I know of in the record that requires anyone to post a repudiation of libel against another, or a repudiation of a statement that puts down Jews or those of other faiths, for the TOS by Mr. Hsiung is that one does not have to post anything for Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies to sanction a post because Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire, so no one has to complain before he and/or his deputies act. This is established here by:
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2004112/msgs/307041.html
> > > But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
> > > But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God. The statement by the poster could be seen by Jewish readers and readers of other Abrahamic faiths as a mocking and taunting that ridicules those that are Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. The statement as I read it insults the God in question and is self-evident by the nature of the generally accepted understanding of what {put down} means. And to allow this to continue could induce to the next reader of that post what could seriously mislead the reader into thinking that the statement in question is supportive and that it alright to post what could put down Jews in spite of the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, for after all, Mr. Hsiung also states that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. If so, That IMHHHHHHO distorts the intent of the mission of the forum and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose.
> > > So be it as you want to be, Mr. Hsiung. And you say that you will take responsibility for what is posted here. And I say that by you allowing the statement to stand without repudiation by yourself, readers could think that you are ratifying what the statement could purport. This IMHO could encourage third-party posts of the same nature, which the record clearly shows in that from this post in question on, other posts that put down Jews and others and those post that are anti-Semitic are what in question in this discussion.
> > > Now I would like to go on to that post where the poster offers the link to John 5 where I have listed the verses that are anti-Semitic. And I am modifying my request in that I now would like for you to use the following format that you used in the other post in this discussion, if you agree that the verses that I have listed are anti-Semitic, which is:
> > > [ admin, 1050578 ]
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > correction:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> >
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote that by me posting a repudiation that it would address the issues more effectively. You also agree that a subset of readers could feel humiliated and put down and kill themselves after reading the post in question, such as Jewish children and those of other Abrahamic faiths.
> You also state that readers would have to jump to a conclusion concerning that what is seen in the statement to be supportive and good for the community. I do not think so, because your own terms of service state that you do what will be good for this community as a whole, and that you do not wait to sanction a post even if no one complained because one match could start a forest fire. You also state that unsanctioned posts could be thought by readers to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. There are even other posts by you that establish that what is seen as being un notated by you , that the statements that stand are considered by you to be supportive, for you state that support takes precedence. I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you. And more than that, you state that you will attend to notifications but you give yourself the option of attending to notifications from me as stating that you think that it might be good for members to see that you do not have to respond to me. All of that, makes it easy IMHO to conclude without making any jump to that conclusion. And the fact that we are in discussion for you to post what could put out the fire of hate and that you are taking the position that you are waiting for me to post something, contradicts your claim that you do not wait to sanction a post because that one match could start a forest fire so waiting for another to complain or give you a better explanation to this (such as you claiming that I could state it better so you will wait for me) could allow the fire to escalate. So readers can make their own determination as to if you are concerned or not by reading what you have posted here.
> The other aspect of that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation because you want a better statement from me in place of yours, brings up that readers could see the post standing so that they could think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the libel against me and the Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. This could encourage other defamatory postings against me and Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. And as time runs, more posts of the same nature could arise and a development of hatred toward me and the Jews and the others could be fostered here by you and your deputies allowing what you admit is a statement that puts down Jews and that you are concerned about it. Yet today, the statement stands and the fire of hate is still burning.
> By you stating here that you are waiting to post to the statement in question as a repudiation of it, but that I would address the issues more effectively, could be seen by a subset of readers as that your contention misrepresents your own terms of service, for you state that you do not wait to put out a match that could start a forest fire so that your contention distorts the intent of your administration of the site as to protect people from statements that humiliate, ridicule and otherwise put down a subset of readers. It is plainly visible that the evidence here is that by you saying that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation could be thought IMHO by a subset of readers that you are attempting to shift the blame of any harm that could come to a reader that sees the statement in question as supportive because it stands, to me, because I have not posted my own repudiation to the libel against me and the Jews. This could be thought also that you are shifting the {responsibility} for sanctioning the post to the users of this site which some readers could see that you are attempting to make an argument that you are immune from invoking your own rules in statements that put down those of other faiths in an attempt to subvert your own rules. But the post puts down all Jews and all Islamic people and all Christians and all others that have their faith as being in an Abrahamic religion while you have a rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths. I can only speak for myself and because of your prohibitions posted to me here, I am prevented from addressing the libel toward me and the Jews in the manner that I need to in order for me to repudiate the defamation toward the Jews and me as a Jew here. And your TOS state to use the notification procedure and I have followed those rules as can be seen by the years of outstanding notification and requests that if you had responded to them, IMHO the fire of hatred toward me and the Jews and others here would have not been allowed to start.
> Lou PIlder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to that you now have posted,[...readers could think that I was just not reading the board then...]. This is a response to that you wrote that readers would have to jump to a conclusion concerning that what is seen in the statement in question is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, and I see that they do not have to make any jump at all.
Now that you say that it is possible for readers to think that you did not read the statement then, that could mean that there could be a subset of readers that could think that. But what is in question here is something else. You see, your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here, also know that your deputies would be acting in your behalf and since they also did not sanction the post, then those readers could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking, because you state that posts that are not acted on are considered by you to be not breaking your rules so no jump to a conclusion needs to be done. The subset of readers that think that if you are not on line and that is why the post is standing, could be a much smaller subset of readers than those that know your TOS. But the overriding issue here is that your rule to not post anything what could put down those of other faiths doesn't mean that all readers have to consider the statement in question to be putting down Jews and others from other Abrahamic faiths. If there is a subset of readers that do not understand your TOS, I do not think that they even qualify to determine what is supportive by you or not and IMHO are unable to make a conclusion for they do not have the foundation of knowing your TOS and rules to do so.
You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question. When the readers see the statement about me unsanctioned, they could think that you are validating the libel against me and if I was to post that what is written about me is false and could decrease the respect and regard in which I am held and induce hostile , disagreeable opinions and feelings against me, that in no wise says anything about you repudiating the libel, so readers could still think that the libel is considered to be supportive by you, and also your deputies of record then. Readers could also think that you could be soliciting others to post analogous statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings by the nature that the libel is allowed to stand and you state that support takes precedence and that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be not breaking your rules. You also state that you have the option of leaving my notifications outstanding and that you think it could be good for readers to see that you do not have to respond to me. This all brings together what could cause me and other Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence be it physical or emotional/psychological infliction of distress as readers could think that you are validating hatred to be allowed to be posted toward me here as that it will be good for this community as a whole for it to happen.
You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God. This could be thought by a subset of readers as ridiculing those people that have the God that the Jews give service and worship to. The burden described by the author toward me is {saving souls} That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason. The statement that God imposed the burden is also false and insults that God and insults the God of other Abrahamic faiths for the commandments from this God are not a burden and I delight in the law of this God. And Jews all over the world celebrate the commandments given to Moses after God brought them out of bondage in Egypt. The use of the statement in question here, and let us look at it again:
[...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
can IMHO could cause a subset of readers to feel ridicule and humiliation to let's say, a 14 year old Jewish child that comes here in depression, and when they read it, because it is unsanctioned, they could think that you and your deputies are validating ridicule of the Jews. And they came here in depression seeking support. Psychologists write about how a statement of such could cause depression. And when one is already in depression, that could IMO tip the scales of a subset of readers as described, to commit suicide.
Here is a link concerning that psychologists do address this issue. Never again.
Lou Pilder
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/5/427.abstract
Posted by Phillipa on January 13, 2014, at 22:33:18
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-vadehratfy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2014, at 19:42:33
Lou it's too long to read now. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 7:20:04
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-vadehratfy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2014, at 19:42:33
> > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
>
> your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the communityThat could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
> You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
> You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
> That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 8:07:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 7:20:04
> > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> >
> > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
>
> That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
>
> > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
>
> I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
>
> > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
>
> OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
>
> > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
>
> That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that the use of the phrase that a God imposes a treacherous form of slavery is a statement that you could address as a statement that could be seen by a subset of readers as constituting {putting down} that God.
If I was to post any repudiation, my repudiation does not address as to that a subset of readers could think that by you leaving the statement in question to stand, that you are validating that the statement is not against your rules. By the nature of that the statement stands, anti-Semitic hatred could be fostered as a subset of readers that could think that the statement is supportive by you and will be good for this community as a whole, could post analogous statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. The fact that there are such posts after the one in question was posted, could also lead Jewish readers to feel shamed and humiliated here. There could also be {stigmatization} fostered here of Jews as the statement says that Jews give service and worship to a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon them. The statement has been used historically, and I am prevented from posting that here due to your prohibitions posted to me here, which prevents me from posting my own repudiation in the manner that I would want to post. The statement is false, but there is much more to this that I am prohibited by you to post.
I would like very much for you to do the addressing of the statement, and then go on to the posts that offer links to verses that are anti-Semitic. One of those posts cites John 5. There are others so I am requesting that you choose from them as to which one you would like to address first. The one with {his blood be upon us} Matthew 27:25, is one.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 17:01:31
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-trcheuslv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 8:07:45
> > > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> > >
> > > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> >
> > That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
> >
> > > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
> >
> > I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
> >
> > > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
> >
> > OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
> >
> > > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
> >
> > That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that the use of the phrase that a God imposes a treacherous form of slavery is a statement that you could address as a statement that could be seen by a subset of readers as constituting {putting down} that God.
> If I was to post any repudiation, my repudiation does not address as to that a subset of readers could think that by you leaving the statement in question to stand, that you are validating that the statement is not against your rules. By the nature of that the statement stands, anti-Semitic hatred could be fostered as a subset of readers that could think that the statement is supportive by you and will be good for this community as a whole, could post analogous statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. The fact that there are such posts after the one in question was posted, could also lead Jewish readers to feel shamed and humiliated here. There could also be {stigmatization} fostered here of Jews as the statement says that Jews give service and worship to a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon them. The statement has been used historically, and I am prevented from posting that here due to your prohibitions posted to me here, which prevents me from posting my own repudiation in the manner that I would want to post. The statement is false, but there is much more to this that I am prohibited by you to post.
> I would like very much for you to do the addressing of the statement, and then go on to the posts that offer links to verses that are anti-Semitic. One of those posts cites John 5. There are others so I am requesting that you choose from them as to which one you would like to address first. The one with {his blood be upon us} Matthew 27:25, is one.Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that the subset of readers that see a post unsanctioned here could think that what is in the post is not against your rules. This is because you have posted that here.
Then you say that those people would have to jump to a conclusion, that what is in the post unsanctioned is not against your rules, because you and the deputies of record then could have not read the post in question. I say not and here is why.
Your TOS states that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and also that readers are to try to trust you and that you will appreciate it if they did. So the subset of readers that know your TOS here that see unsanctioned posts, could take you at your word that what is in the post is not against your rules as you state. This could mean that those people could think that unsanctioned anti-Semitic statements are not against your rules. Granted, you and all the deputies then could have not read the post in question, but since you state that you do what will be good for this community as a whole, those readers could think that even if you and your deputies then did not read it, the statements in the post that are unsanctioned could be considered by those readers to not be against your rules. They could also know of the notification system and also know that you give yourself the option of not responding to notifications from me and that you think that it will be good for readers to see that you do not have to respond to me. Another aspect of this is that there could be negligence by you and all of the deputies if the statement is unsanctioned and that it should have been. If that be the case, I would like for you to post answer to the following so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Were you and the deputies of record in this post in question all negligent in not reading it?
B. If so, could you post an apology for yourself and ask the deputies of record the to also post their individual apology?
C. Would you take responsibility for any deaths or injuries that could be shown to have come to someone as a result of you and your deputies being negligent, if you agree that you and those deputies did not read the statement in question that puts down Jews as that the God that they give service and worship to has imposed a treacherous form of slavery upon them?
D. Do you think that you and your deputies have right to be negligent in regards to not sanctioning posts that are anti-Semitic or ridicule Jews for giving service and worship to the God that delivered their ancestors out of bondage in Egypt?
Lou Pider
Posted by Phillipa on January 17, 2014, at 21:10:12
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-trcheuslv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 8:07:45
One statement I agree as posts are very long. Not criticizing them just saying that I feel maybe people won't read long posts. I don't know. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 8:22:53
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2014, at 7:20:04
> > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> >
> > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
>
> That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
>
> > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
>
> I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
>
> > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
>
> OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
>
> > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
>
> That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I am not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you...}
and,
[...how would I know if you were under any burden...?]
and,
[...I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held...]
and,
[...Nor do I see that posting that you are under a burden is libel...]
and,
[...Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel..?]
Let us understand here that I am made the subject by the poster, and that you and your deputies can control the content as seen by the fact that you post to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused, and not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and not to post what could be seen as jumping to a conclusion about someone. You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another. This is further exemplified in the fact that you state that if a statement is seen here unsanctioned by you and your deputies, that readers could think that what is posted is not against your rules and is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. You also have a notification system to alert posts to you and your deputies that you say that you use except that you give yourself the option to ignore my notifications to you so that it will be good for others to see that you do not have to respond to me.
Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me in that what is in question, that the God that I give service and worship to has imposed a treacherous form of slavery upon me, is stated without sanction by you or any of up to six deputies of yours that act in your behalf when you are not on line. You even state here as to how anyone would know if I was under any burden. The statement by the poster is false, and brings me into ridicule, hatred and scorn of others. The statement, on a mental health forum chaired by a psychiatrist with deputies to control the content, offers an expectation of protection from harmful statements to the users of the site. If you and your deputies continue to not post a repudiation of the harmful statement against me, then a subset of readers could think, IMHO, that all of you are being malicious toward me which harms me even more by bringing me into focus as a target that does not get the protection from you and your deputies that others receive as that you post sanctions to other statements that put down or accuse or jump to a conclusion about others here. This is what the crux of libel is. Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on January 18, 2014, at 8:37:16
In reply to Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-libel » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 8:22:53
> Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
Is to libel God also libeling all those who would believe in Him? Maybe. Just a question.
Is it libel to God to recommend to someone that they believe in the divinity of a statue? What about recommending to others that they believe in a different model of religion than those the Jews and Christians believe in; all of this without recommending the rejecting of any other god specifically? Can I tell someone that they are a good person without having to identify a bad person.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 9:52:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-libel » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on January 18, 2014, at 8:37:16
> > Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
>
> Is to libel God also libeling all those who would believe in Him? Maybe. Just a question.
>
> Is it libel to God to recommend to someone that they believe in the divinity of a statue? What about recommending to others that they believe in a different model of religion than those the Jews and Christians believe in; all of this without recommending the rejecting of any other god specifically? Can I tell someone that they are a good person without having to identify a bad person.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
Let us look at this post..
Lou
[ faith, 392216 ]
Posted by SLS on January 18, 2014, at 9:57:38
In reply to Lou's response-ptdwnuddrphaithz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 9:52:09
> Scott,
> Let us look at this post..
> Lou
> [ faith, 392216 ]I couldn't find it.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 10:05:54
In reply to Lou's response-ptdwnuddrphaithz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 9:52:09
> > > Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> >
> > Is to libel God also libeling all those who would believe in Him? Maybe. Just a question.
> >
> > Is it libel to God to recommend to someone that they believe in the divinity of a statue? What about recommending to others that they believe in a different model of religion than those the Jews and Christians believe in; all of this without recommending the rejecting of any other god specifically? Can I tell someone that they are a good person without having to identify a bad person.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> Let us look at this post..
> Lou
> [ faith, 392216 ]correction:
[ admin, 392214 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 11:29:00
In reply to Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-libel » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 8:22:53
> > > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> > >
> > > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> >
> > That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
> >
> > > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
> >
> > I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
> >
> > > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
> >
> > OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
> >
> > > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
> >
> > That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...I am not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you...}
> and,
> [...how would I know if you were under any burden...?]
> and,
> [...I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held...]
> and,
> [...Nor do I see that posting that you are under a burden is libel...]
> and,
> [...Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel..?]
> Let us understand here that I am made the subject by the poster, and that you and your deputies can control the content as seen by the fact that you post to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused, and not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and not to post what could be seen as jumping to a conclusion about someone. You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started to sanction a statement that could put down/accuse another. This is further exemplified in the fact that you state that if a statement is seen here unsanctioned by you and your deputies, that readers could think that what is posted is not against your rules and is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. You also have a notification system to alert posts to you and your deputies that you say that you use except that you give yourself the option to ignore my notifications to you so that it will be good for others to see that you do not have to respond to me.
> Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me in that what is in question, that the God that I give service and worship to has imposed a treacherous form of slavery upon me, is stated without sanction by you or any of up to six deputies of yours that act in your behalf when you are not on line. You even state here as to how anyone would know if I was under any burden. The statement by the poster is false, and brings me into ridicule, hatred and scorn of others. The statement, on a mental health forum chaired by a psychiatrist with deputies to control the content, offers an expectation of protection from harmful statements to the users of the site. If you and your deputies continue to not post a repudiation of the harmful statement against me, then a subset of readers could think, IMHO, that all of you are being malicious toward me which harms me even more by bringing me into focus as a target that does not get the protection from you and your deputies that others receive as that you post sanctions to other statements that put down or accuse or jump to a conclusion about others here. This is what the crux of libel is. Libel is the writing of a false statement that brings a person into ridicule, humiliation, belittlement and in this case here, the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at that you posted to me,
[...I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate)what was said about you...].
Your TOS states that unsanctioned (un repudiated) statements could be thought by readers to be not against the rules of yours. By leaving the statement that libels another unsanctioned, there could be a subset of readers that could think that you are validating the libel. Then by posting a repudiation by you, that could show that you are not validating the libel.
What could also be thought by a subset of readers, is that by you not posting a repudiation to the libel, that you could really be intentionally developing or contributing to the objectionable material which misrepresents your contention in your TOS that if something is not supportive, it should not be posted for support takes precedence, even if one believes the objectionable material, even if one is quoting someone else, and even if it is somewhat true.
What could be worse is that by you leaving the objectionable material without repudiation by you or your deputies, a subset of readers IMHO could think that you are designing your site to be a portal for anti-Semitic expression. There is historical reference to when one is a publisher that plays a significant role in developing content where Jewish readers could feel humiliated, ridiculed and belittled and have their faith insulted. Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 10:46:06
In reply to Lou's response-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvragn, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2014, at 11:29:00
> You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
> Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
2. Y could say he isn't short.I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
> the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2014, at 17:37:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 10:46:06
> > You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
>
> I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
>
> > Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
>
> Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
>
> 1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
> 2. Y could say he isn't short.
>
> I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
>
> > the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
>
> That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above.
Let us look at these two posts.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044544.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051121.html
The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. This shield will not prevent me from breaking my leg or getting killed in an airplane crash or from emotional/psychological harm that could come to me from libel against me or prevent me from being a victim of anti-Semitic violence. What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
I am prevented from posting here what IMHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to your prohibitions posted to me here, for if not for those prohibitions by you to me here, I could post how those that harbor hate could overcome those shackles and be freed from the bondage of hate and have a new life and sing a new song.
But the post in question here belittles me as a Jew that could cause a subset of readers to think that you are ratifying the ridicule of me for being a Jew because you state that un sanctioned posts could be thought that what is posted, to not be against your rules. That could lead those to post analogous statements and for a subset of readers to feel that Jews are an inferior group of people to humiliate here because you do not sanction what could lead a Jew to feel put down in this post in question. The post is a response by the poster to a subject line of the poster that wrote about the Israelites being delivered out of slavery in Egypt that had the commandments to the Jews given to Moses after the Exodus. The post is not about me, but about all Jews. I am just used as a example because the poster knows that I am one Jew here to use for the statement that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
The mockery of Jews, if allowed to stand, could be thought by a subset of readers that you are validating what the statement says as being supportive by you, and will be good for this community as a whole. I can not stop that kind of thinking by those that see you as having that in your mind, for it is you that controls the content here by allowing hate to stand or not. The hate against Jews that can be seen by a subset of readers could spread like a fire even if I was to post a denial that I have a burden imposed into me by the God in question and even if you change your rules so that you do not have to be a fireman to put out the fire of hate here. Your changing of your rules is {after the fact} and could be seen by a subset of readers as a transparent attempt to immunize you from responsibility where no immunization IMHO is deserved. There is historical precedence where the leader of a country changed the rules to allow hatred toward the Jews to abound. Never again.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2014, at 10:58:36
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ekspoazphaktoe » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2014, at 17:37:48
> > > You state that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down because one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait until the fire is started
> >
> > I guess my thinking about this has shifted. Yes, one match can start a forest fire. And Smokey Bear is right when he says, "Only you can stop forest fires." I used to see him as pointing to me (and the deputies). Now I'm pointing to posters.
> >
> > > Since I am the subject person in the statement in question, there is that the poster jumps to a conclusion about me
> >
> > Right, that's the first issue that could be addressed. Here's an analogy: Poster X calls poster Y short. Neither X nor I know if Y is tall or short. X is jumping to a conclusion, and Y could feel put down. Options are:
> >
> > 1. I could intervene and tell X not to call Y short.
> > 2. Y could say he isn't short.
> >
> > I see #1 as unnecessary because #2 is sufficient. But I suppose if Y isn't too concerned about what others think of him, both might be unnecessary.
> >
> > > the poster insults the God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from slavery in Egypt, which insults the Jews that cherish that God.
> >
> > That's the second issue, which I said I'd address if you addressed the first. But maybe the second doesn't need to be contingent on the first, since you might not be too concerned about what others think of you. Since you have a shield. If that's the case, let me know, and I'll go ahead with the second.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote the above.
> Let us look at these two posts.
> Lou PIlder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1044544.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051121.html
> The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. This shield will not prevent me from breaking my leg or getting killed in an airplane crash or from emotional/psychological harm that could come to me from libel against me or prevent me from being a victim of anti-Semitic violence. What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
> I am prevented from posting here what IMHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to your prohibitions posted to me here, for if not for those prohibitions by you to me here, I could post how those that harbor hate could overcome those shackles and be freed from the bondage of hate and have a new life and sing a new song.
> But the post in question here belittles me as a Jew that could cause a subset of readers to think that you are ratifying the ridicule of me for being a Jew because you state that un sanctioned posts could be thought that what is posted, to not be against your rules. That could lead those to post analogous statements and for a subset of readers to feel that Jews are an inferior group of people to humiliate here because you do not sanction what could lead a Jew to feel put down in this post in question. The post is a response by the poster to a subject line of the poster that wrote about the Israelites being delivered out of slavery in Egypt that had the commandments to the Jews given to Moses after the Exodus. The post is not about me, but about all Jews. I am just used as a example because the poster knows that I am one Jew here to use for the statement that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
> The mockery of Jews, if allowed to stand, could be thought by a subset of readers that you are validating what the statement says as being supportive by you, and will be good for this community as a whole. I can not stop that kind of thinking by those that see you as having that in your mind, for it is you that controls the content here by allowing hate to stand or not. The hate against Jews that can be seen by a subset of readers could spread like a fire even if I was to post a denial that I have a burden imposed into me by the God in question and even if you change your rules so that you do not have to be a fireman to put out the fire of hate here. Your changing of your rules is {after the fact} and could be seen by a subset of readers as a transparent attempt to immunize you from responsibility where no immunization IMHO is deserved. There is historical precedence where the leader of a country changed the rules to allow hatred toward the Jews to abound. Never again.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...But maybe the second does not need to be contingent on the first since you may not be too concerned about what others think about you. Since you have a shield. If that is the case, let me know, and I will go ahead with the second...].
I am unsure as to if you are going to address the second part of the objectionable statement against the Jews or not. I contend that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to and is an anti-Semitic statement regardless of what the first part says about me. Yet today, you say what I have posted in this post that you wrote.
Looking at what you wrote, I need to know if you are or are not going to post your repudiation as that I have responded to you that the shield of faith does not stop what could cause emotional distress inflicted upon me by seeing libel toward me unsanctioned here, or statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings that could mean that a subset of readers could think that it is not against your rules to post such and I am concerned about what others think about me and what could be thought about the Jews. So if you could let me know what you intend to do, I could respond accordingly.
A. I will post a repudiation only to the second part of the statement.
B. I will post a repudiation to the second part which could also be a repudiation of the first part
C. I will post separate repudiations to each part
D. I will not post a repudiation of the second part because you say that you are concerned about what readers think about you and the Shield doe snot protect you from any harm that could come to you that could arise out of the statement being allowed to stand.
E. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2014, at 4:05:16
In reply to Lou's repy- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wytzuhpdk, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2014, at 10:58:36
> > The shield of faith does not stop stones thrown at me here. ... What the shield of faith does do, is to shield me from having hatred infused into me by others.
OK, I misunderstood. It protects you from hate, but not from hurt.
> E. something else
My current idea is:
I won't post a repudiation of the first part. If you want to, that's fine. If you chose to let the first part stand, that's fine, too.
I won't exactly post a repudiation of the second part, either. I'll address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery would be putting down that God. I'm not sure it would be. I don't see saying God imposed suffering on Job as putting down God. Is a treacherous form of slavery so different? It's not clear to me that it is.
Bob
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.