![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on August 29, 2014, at 22:25:43
In reply to Re: Lou Pilder: How long?, posted by ClearSkies on August 29, 2014, at 19:05:04
> Ha ha ha. How long have you been posting?
I am hoping that Lou can frame his efforts in relation to the time he has invested in attaining his goals.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2014, at 8:30:04
In reply to Lou Pilder: How long?, posted by SLS on August 29, 2014, at 17:43:51
> How long have you been submitting posts regarding:
>
> 1. The ubiquitous use of psychiatric drugs that you contend causes death.
>
> 2. The existence of a subset of readers that will commit violent acts against Jews as the direct result of the behavior of the website operator.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...a subset of readers that will commit violent acts against Jews...].
The historical record shows how masses of people can be manipulated and indoctrinated to hate and commit violent acts. This can be accomplished by propaganda from the governing body through techniques designed to arouse hatred toward identifiable groups of people. The propaganda, since it comes from the leaders of the community, is known as {state sponsored}. If the propaganda is directed against the Jews, it is known as {state-sponsored anti-Semitism}.
The leaders use a group of fallacious arguments of psychological tactics to indoctrinate the people into accepting anti-Semitic hate. These tactics revolve around an expectation of the people being benefitted by accepting discrimination as official policy in the future, and to rust the leaders in that.
In slavery, the state justified it on the grounds that it would be good for the community as a whole. They led people to believe that by enslaving human beings, their exports would have a cost basis less than other countries and then there would be an economic benefit and the people that were not slaves would have more money. The economic increase became more important then the dehumanizing of human beings.
Now in order for the state to indoctrinate and manipulate the people into accepting slavery, propaganda was used by the leaders to justify slavery. One of the propaganda techniques was the use of that {it will be good for the community as a whole to have slavery}. And another propaganda techniques was discrimination. This involved that the people that were enslaved, were not really people with the same rights as the other people. So the leaders made laws that denied equality to the slaves, which dehumanized them and the people were led to believe that what they were doing to the slaves was not immoral, for the slaves were not considered equally human. This became then, {state-sponsored hate}, racism to the nth degree, and was justified in the minds of the people because they were led to believe by the leaders that it would be good for the country as a whole. But did history validate that claim?
In anti-Semitic hate devised by the leaders of the state to have the people hate Jews, the same tactics could be used in dehumanizing the Jews through propaganda. The leaders also said that it would be good for the country as a whole to commit genocide. In order to do this, the propaganda had to lead the people to believe that Jews were inferior and outside of God's family shut out from going to heaven and then people could consider Jews as non-humans and then genocide could be thought to be justified in the minds of the people that were manipulated through propaganda to accept that. In order for the state to do this, they manipulated the minds of the people through propaganda to make people believe that the Jews were the cause of the ill-health of the country. This is the use of {scapegoating} in anti-Semitic propaganda.
I have come here to stop the use of anti-Semitic propaganda here to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where there are statements that arouse hatred toward the Jews, and defamation against me, being allowed to stand where they are originally posted. This started way back here, but the fire of hate could still be put out if Mr. Hsiung posts his tag line to please be civil to the statements in question under discussion here.
Here is one such, and notice that there is not a tag line to be civil from Mr. Hsiung but a justification posted by Mr. Hsiung where IMHO no justification is deserved. This leaves the anti-Semitic hate in the post to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole by readers that take Mr.Hsiung at his word and trust him that he is doing what will be good for this community as a whole.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2014, at 9:36:28
In reply to Lou's reply-truzme » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2014, at 8:30:04
> > How long have you been submitting posts regarding:
> >
> > 1. The ubiquitous use of psychiatric drugs that you contend causes death.
> >
> > 2. The existence of a subset of readers that will commit violent acts against Jews as the direct result of the behavior of the website operator.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...a subset of readers that will commit violent acts against Jews...].
> The historical record shows how masses of people can be manipulated and indoctrinated to hate and commit violent acts. This can be accomplished by propaganda from the governing body through techniques designed to arouse hatred toward identifiable groups of people. The propaganda, since it comes from the leaders of the community, is known as {state sponsored}. If the propaganda is directed against the Jews, it is known as {state-sponsored anti-Semitism}.
> The leaders use a group of fallacious arguments of psychological tactics to indoctrinate the people into accepting anti-Semitic hate. These tactics revolve around an expectation of the people being benefitted by accepting discrimination as official policy in the future, and to rust the leaders in that.
> In slavery, the state justified it on the grounds that it would be good for the community as a whole. They led people to believe that by enslaving human beings, their exports would have a cost basis less than other countries and then there would be an economic benefit and the people that were not slaves would have more money. The economic increase became more important then the dehumanizing of human beings.
> Now in order for the state to indoctrinate and manipulate the people into accepting slavery, propaganda was used by the leaders to justify slavery. One of the propaganda techniques was the use of that {it will be good for the community as a whole to have slavery}. And another propaganda techniques was discrimination. This involved that the people that were enslaved, were not really people with the same rights as the other people. So the leaders made laws that denied equality to the slaves, which dehumanized them and the people were led to believe that what they were doing to the slaves was not immoral, for the slaves were not considered equally human. This became then, {state-sponsored hate}, racism to the nth degree, and was justified in the minds of the people because they were led to believe by the leaders that it would be good for the country as a whole. But did history validate that claim?
> In anti-Semitic hate devised by the leaders of the state to have the people hate Jews, the same tactics could be used in dehumanizing the Jews through propaganda. The leaders also said that it would be good for the country as a whole to commit genocide. In order to do this, the propaganda had to lead the people to believe that Jews were inferior and outside of God's family shut out from going to heaven and then people could consider Jews as non-humans and then genocide could be thought to be justified in the minds of the people that were manipulated through propaganda to accept that. In order for the state to do this, they manipulated the minds of the people through propaganda to make people believe that the Jews were the cause of the ill-health of the country. This is the use of {scapegoating} in anti-Semitic propaganda.
> I have come here to stop the use of anti-Semitic propaganda here to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where there are statements that arouse hatred toward the Jews, and defamation against me, being allowed to stand where they are originally posted. This started way back here, but the fire of hate could still be put out if Mr. Hsiung posts his tag line to please be civil to the statements in question under discussion here.
> Here is one such, and notice that there is not a tag line to be civil from Mr. Hsiung but a justification posted by Mr. Hsiung where IMHO no justification is deserved. This leaves the anti-Semitic hate in the post to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole by readers that take Mr.Hsiung at his word and trust him that he is doing what will be good for this community as a whole.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.htmlFriends,
Antisemitic propaganda has been well-known as to how it is effected to arouse hatred toward the Jews. One way for hatred toward the Jews to be promulgated in a community is for the leaders to evade by turning a blind-eye to anti-Semitic propaganda put up by the members of the community rather than the leaders to put the hate forward by themselves. They do this by discrimination and evasion.
Here is one such post that has the ancient false charge against the Jews called deicide. It is allowed here over my objections. You can not see my objections because they are in the notification archives that is secret. But Mr. Hsiung states that he is sure to get those notifications and will act on them {*except* for some of mine}. Discrimination in the denying me the equal use of the notification system can have the effect of dehumanizing me and stigmatizing me. He contends that he does this for the good of him and the community as a whole. But if he did act on my notifications, them the results could be that what is notified could be acted on, and by not acting on them could leave anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. A subset of readers could conclude that antisemitsm will be good for this community as a whole being allowed to stand and rejected by Mr. suing of my notifications to him.
In the following, look at the 4th line from the bottom that starts out,[...despised and condemned and made to supper a horrible death {by them}...]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1002966.html
Posted by Phillipa on August 30, 2014, at 20:27:40
In reply to Lou's reply-ancient hate, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2014, at 9:36:28
Lou didn't SLS merely ask you how long you have been posting about the same subject? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on August 31, 2014, at 1:52:44
In reply to Lou Pilder: How long?, posted by SLS on August 29, 2014, at 17:43:51
> How long have you been submitting posts regarding:
>
> 1. The ubiquitous use of psychiatric drugs that you contend causes death.
>
> 2. The existence of a subset of readers that will commit violent acts against Jews as the direct result of the behavior of the website operator.
>
> ThanksThe archives indicate that you have been posting your concerns regarding the potential for the appearance of antisemitism on Psycho-Babble for over 10 years.
In those 10 years, have you identified so much as a single person who would represent a subset of people that has demonstrated antisemitism as the result of the posting behaviors of Dr. Hsiung; behaviors that you insist could create such a subset? Have you witnessed the emergence of any such subsets? When potential has not yet been realized by actualization, how can you be sure that such potential actually exists? Yours is but a hypothesis that you have no evidence to support at this time.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2014, at 13:23:53
In reply to Re: Lou Pilder: How long?, posted by SLS on August 29, 2014, at 22:25:43
> > Ha ha ha. How long have you been posting?
>
> I am hoping that Lou can frame his efforts in relation to the time he has invested in attaining his goals.
>
>
> - ScottScott, you wrote the above.
I am unsure as to what you want readers to think by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False
A. What you wrote about me could be taken by a subset of readers that could have a rational basis to think that what you wrote about me constitutes ridiculing me.
B. Your goals, Lou, are to save lives so your time invested here is more important than any lives saved.
C. One person like yourself, Lou, is not enough to stop Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements and defamation toward you to be seen as civil by a subset of readers where they are originally posted, (for they could have a rational basis to think that because the TOS/FAQ states to not post *anything* that could lead a person to feel put down or accused and to respect the views of others and be sensitive to the feelings of others and other statement by Mr. Hsiung say that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times which could rule out any excuse to allow members to post what is uncivil here that could lead a Jew to feel put down or have their faith insulted.)
D. If everyone here would protest that anti-Semitic statements and defamation against you, Lou, are allowed to be seen as civil here where they are originally posted, then you, Lou, would not have to spend the time that you expend here to accomplish your goals.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2014, at 20:47:00
In reply to Lou's response-wynmilz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2014, at 13:23:53
Lou I feel he said that for over l0 years you have been posting the same. And no one has been harmed or hurt a Jew. Correct me if wrong. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2014, at 22:15:24
In reply to Re: Lou Pilder: How long? » SLS, posted by SLS on August 31, 2014, at 1:52:44
> > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
Why do you ask?
How long have others been submitting posts regarding Lou?
Bob
Posted by SLS on August 31, 2014, at 23:11:59
In reply to Re: SLS: How long?, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2014, at 22:15:24
> > > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
>
> Why do you ask?I hoped to have Lou demonstrate for me the existence of a subset of posters who have become antisemitic as the result of administrative action or inaction. If such a subset exists, I would like to know about it so that I might further evaluate the desirability and nature of my participation here.
> How long have others been submitting posts regarding Lou?
>
> BobThat's an interesting sociological question. However, my present concerns do not include addressing this issue. It is irrelevant. Why do you ask?
Should I be concerned that your moderation of this website fosters antisemitism?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 11:30:28
In reply to Re: SLS: How long? » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on August 31, 2014, at 23:11:59
> > > > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
> >
> > Why do you ask?
>
> I hoped to have Lou demonstrate for me the existence of a subset of posters who have become antisemitic as the result of administrative action or inaction. If such a subset exists, I would like to know about it so that I might further evaluate the desirability and nature of my participation here.
>
> > How long have others been submitting posts regarding Lou?
> >
> > Bob
>
> That's an interesting sociological question. However, my present concerns do not include addressing this issue. It is irrelevant. Why do you ask?
>
> Should I be concerned that your moderation of this website fosters antisemitism?
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote,[...Should I be concerned that your moderation of this website fosters antisemitism?...].
The generally accepted meaning of to foster something, means to encourage or promote the development of something. Another meaning is to advance something or cultivate . The {something} in question here that is fostered, is anti-Semitism which means against the Jew or as in this site, something posted here that leads a Jew to feel put down or accused , or something that leads a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down.
To advance or encourage by Mr. Hsiung what could lead a Jew to feel put down or accused or that their faith is being put down can be seen by a subset of readers here in the following post. Let us first look at the statement by Mr. Hsiung in this post:
http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
Now looking at Mr. Hsiung's tagline, {...Thank's I think that's good...}, the question here is if his remark has the potential to foster anti-Semitism. It does if
A. The statement could lead a Jew to feel put dow or accused
or
B. The statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down.
The statement could lead a rational person to think that it says that Judaism is inferior to Christianity. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that the grammatical structure of the statement by the poster makes a comparison in that the law came by Moses {BUT} grace and truth came by Jesus Christ which could lead a Jew to feel put down as that as being a Jew, they do not have grace and truth in their faith because grace and truth came by Jesus Christ which Judaism rejects that claim. So the comparison between the two could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down as Judaism being an inferior faith without grace and truth.
By allowing the statement to stand is one thing. But it is a greater thing to a subset of Jewish readers when the moderator fosters what is posted as being good and thanking the poster for posting such. For that subset of readers could feel that their faith in Judaism is being insulted in that the moderator thanks the poster for posting what could lead a Jew to feel put down.
There are many cases concerning members of on-line groups killing themselves as being bullied on the site. When a Jewish teenager reads what Mr. Hsiung has posted here, there is the potential IMHO for a depressed person of that age to lose their hope to live, as feeling put down as a Jew fostered by a psychiatrist. This is further more probable IMHO when there is a rule by a psychiatrist to not post what could lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down, and the reader in depression can see it that way. You see, the people here can be very vulnerable to feeling put down, and the psychiatrist knows that here. So to foster what could lead a Jewish person to feel put down here, could show to a subset of jurists, a reckless disregard for the truth by those that allow the statement to be fostered.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 11:33:27
In reply to Lou's response-wrklez » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 11:30:28
> > > > > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
> > >
> > > Why do you ask?
> >
> > I hoped to have Lou demonstrate for me the existence of a subset of posters who have become antisemitic as the result of administrative action or inaction. If such a subset exists, I would like to know about it so that I might further evaluate the desirability and nature of my participation here.
> >
> > > How long have others been submitting posts regarding Lou?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > That's an interesting sociological question. However, my present concerns do not include addressing this issue. It is irrelevant. Why do you ask?
> >
> > Should I be concerned that your moderation of this website fosters antisemitism?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Should I be concerned that your moderation of this website fosters antisemitism?...].
> The generally accepted meaning of to foster something, means to encourage or promote the development of something. Another meaning is to advance something or cultivate . The {something} in question here that is fostered, is anti-Semitism which means against the Jew or as in this site, something posted here that leads a Jew to feel put down or accused , or something that leads a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down.
> To advance or encourage by Mr. Hsiung what could lead a Jew to feel put down or accused or that their faith is being put down can be seen by a subset of readers here in the following post. Let us first look at the statement by Mr. Hsiung in this post:
> http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
> Now looking at Mr. Hsiung's tagline, {...Thank's I think that's good...}, the question here is if his remark has the potential to foster anti-Semitism. It does if
> A. The statement could lead a Jew to feel put dow or accused
> or
> B. The statement could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down.
> The statement could lead a rational person to think that it says that Judaism is inferior to Christianity. They could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that the grammatical structure of the statement by the poster makes a comparison in that the law came by Moses {BUT} grace and truth came by Jesus Christ which could lead a Jew to feel put down as that as being a Jew, they do not have grace and truth in their faith because grace and truth came by Jesus Christ which Judaism rejects that claim. So the comparison between the two could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down as Judaism being an inferior faith without grace and truth.
> By allowing the statement to stand is one thing. But it is a greater thing to a subset of Jewish readers when the moderator fosters what is posted as being good and thanking the poster for posting such. For that subset of readers could feel that their faith in Judaism is being insulted in that the moderator thanks the poster for posting what could lead a Jew to feel put down.
> There are many cases concerning members of on-line groups killing themselves as being bullied on the site. When a Jewish teenager reads what Mr. Hsiung has posted here, there is the potential IMHO for a depressed person of that age to lose their hope to live, as feeling put down as a Jew fostered by a psychiatrist. This is further more probable IMHO when there is a rule by a psychiatrist to not post what could lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down, and the reader in depression can see it that way. You see, the people here can be very vulnerable to feeling put down, and the psychiatrist knows that here. So to foster what could lead a Jewish person to feel put down here, could show to a subset of jurists, a reckless disregard for the truth by those that allow the statement to be fostered.
> Loucorrection
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
Posted by SLS on September 1, 2014, at 13:04:02
In reply to Lou's response-wrklez » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 11:30:28
I appreciate your concerns. You make clear your logic for having these concerns.
The Faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenets that are often in conflict with those of others. How does one moderate narrative statements describing one's religious beliefs? I think that in order to allow the Faith board to function, it is necessary to exercise a certain amount of tolerance of the passions of others. Unfortunately, even Jews put down Jews for lack of tolerance.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 13:53:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response-wrklez » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 1, 2014, at 13:04:02
> I appreciate your concerns. You make clear your logic for having these concerns.
>
> The Faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenets that are often in conflict with those of others. How does one moderate narrative statements describing one's religious beliefs? I think that in order to allow the Faith board to function, it is necessary to exercise a certain amount of tolerance of the passions of others. Unfortunately, even Jews put down Jews for lack of tolerance.
>
> http://www.jta.org/2014/06/03/news-opinion/orthodox-condemnation-of-reform-and-conservative-nothing-new
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote the above.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think after reading what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 1, 2014, at 20:29:21
In reply to Lou's response-ptupstan » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 1, 2014, at 13:53:59
> > I appreciate your concerns. You make clear your logic for having these concerns.
> >
> > The Faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenets that are often in conflict with those of others. How does one moderate narrative statements describing one's religious beliefs? I think that in order to allow the Faith board to function, it is necessary to exercise a certain amount of tolerance of the passions of others. Unfortunately, even Jews put down Jews for lack of tolerance.
> >
> > http://www.jta.org/2014/06/03/news-opinion/orthodox-condemnation-of-reform-and-conservative-nothing-new
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote the above.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think after reading what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> True or False:
> A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
> B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
> C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
> D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
> Lou
>I'll need some time to consider your questions.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:46:09
In reply to Re: SLS: How long? » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on August 31, 2014, at 23:11:59
> > > > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
> >
> > Why do you ask?
>
> I hoped to have Lou demonstrate for me the existence of a subset of posters who have become antisemitic as the result of administrative action or inaction. If such a subset exists, I would like to know about it so that I might further evaluate the desirability and nature of my participation here.OK. But how long he's been submitting posts and whether such a subset of posters exists are different questions.
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 6, 2014, at 13:52:01
In reply to Re: SLS: How long?, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:46:09
> > > > > How long have you been submitting posts regarding ...
> > >
> > > Why do you ask?
> >
> > I hoped to have Lou demonstrate for me the existence of a subset of posters who have become antisemitic as the result of administrative action or inaction. If such a subset exists, I would like to know about it so that I might further evaluate the desirability and nature of my participation here.
>
> OK. But how long he's been submitting posts and whether such a subset of posters exists are different questions.
>
> BobYes. You are right.
My motivation to ask "how long" was to bring into focus the lack of an observed emergence of subsets of people who have demonstrated antisemitism as the result of administrative behaviors here, despite a decade of intercourse regarding this issue. It is conceivable that a subset of people will have become zionists as the result of these very same behaviors. I have not seen the emergence of either theoretical subset.
I am guessing that you have learned a great deal about your past posting practices and how to handle future prejudicial content during your discourse with Lou Pilder such that you might improve your moderation activity.
I don't know if you have already addressed the following issues. If you have, please pardon my lack of keeping current on pertinent threads.
1. If you agree that there are posts in the archives that are identified by Lou Pilder as being prejudicial, why have you not edited the archives to reflect the appropriate sanctions to be placed on these posts?
2. If you do not agree that such posts exist, where might I find verbiage by you that asserts this fact.
3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?
I personally don't care how much bandwidth you invest in your discourse with Lou Pilder. However, a subset of people could come to the conclusion that you demonstrate an inequity in your judgment of civility.
------------------------------------
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1059821.html
> there is something about about "Equal treatment under the law" that has always appealed to me. Unfortunately, I see selective enforcement occurring here.
> I look for justice and see none.
>
> I like moderation in moderation.
>
> - ScottThe goal here is support, not justice.
One man's selectivity is another's moderation.
Bob
------------------------------------
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 9:31:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response-ptupstan » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 1, 2014, at 20:29:21
> > > I appreciate your concerns. You make clear your logic for having these concerns.
> > >
> > > The Faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenets that are often in conflict with those of others. How does one moderate narrative statements describing one's religious beliefs? I think that in order to allow the Faith board to function, it is necessary to exercise a certain amount of tolerance of the passions of others. Unfortunately, even Jews put down Jews for lack of tolerance.
> > >
> > > http://www.jta.org/2014/06/03/news-opinion/orthodox-condemnation-of-reform-and-conservative-nothing-new
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote the above.
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think after reading what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > True or False:
> > A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
> > B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
> > C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
> > D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
> > Lou
> >
>
> I'll need some time to consider your questions.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote,[...I'll need some time to consider your questions...].
I am unsure as to why you need some time to consider my questions. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
I'll need some time, Lou, because:
A. I now have come to the conclusion that you have been correct here all the time in your efforts to stop Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record from allowing anti-Semitic statements and defamation against you to be seen as civil where those statements are posted originally.
B. I now see that malice could be part of Mr. Hsiung's and his deputies of record actions that defame Jews and you that you are trying to stop.
C. I need to contact the ADL and see what their position could be by emailing them some of those anti-Semitic statements in question that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowed to be seen as civil here and still can see them as supportive to be what will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hisung's thinking.
D. I need to evaluate as to if the policies here are against the Jew, which means that this could be an anti-Semitic web site.
E. The poster, Bryte, has shown that your concern here is not a one-person issue. And I now am beginning to see that your concerns here have great merit in trying to save lives by stopping what could cause Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence.
F.I now see that what Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are doing by allowing anti-Semitism and defamation toward you to stand, could induce hatred toward the Jews outside of this community as readers seeing that anti-Semitism is allowed to stand as being civil so that others could think that anti-Semitism is validated to be good for any community as a whole by a psychiatrist, since he does what will be good for his community as a whole.
G. other reasons that you need time, but time
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 8, 2014, at 10:27:55
In reply to Lou's reply/request-tymizovtheesssenz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 9:31:49
Hi Lou.
I apologize for not following up on your post. You ask good questions.
> True or False:
> A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
I don't think that this is the mission of the Faith board. However, many religions are exclusionist, and I think one must be able to tolerate this fact in order to participate on the board happily and with minimal stress.
> B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
There is a difference between describing accurately the tenets of a religion versus offering a personal opinion judging the worthlessness of the religions of others. Verbiage is important, of course. It is often difficult to compose posts that state one's beliefs without having others feel put-down. I think Dr. Bob has moderated the Faith board in a way that allows for the inclusion of exclusionist religions, but that minimizes the potential for participants to feel judged or put-down.
> C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
I don't think that the Faith board is an invitation to agonize over the fact that there will be people expressing their subscription to alternate religions.
D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
I am not in a position to judge this, especially when I don't know what you wish to express. If it is your desire to post without punitive sanction something that has already been adjudicated by the moderator, perhaps you should enquire of the moderator if his judgment regarding your posts have changed. You could use email to do this.
If you were to post a belief in a personal revelation that all gentiles are descended from Neanderthals (not that there is anything wrong with that), I think that this would be uncivil because this belief is not to be found in Jewish scripture, and would be considered to be a put-down by many gentiles, as Neanderthals are generally regarded to be inferior.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 15:59:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply/request-tymizovtheesssenz » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 8, 2014, at 10:27:55
> Hi Lou.
>
> I apologize for not following up on your post. You ask good questions.
>
> > True or False:
>
> > A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
>
> I don't think that this is the mission of the Faith board. However, many religions are exclusionist, and I think one must be able to tolerate this fact in order to participate on the board happily and with minimal stress.
>
> > B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
>
> There is a difference between describing accurately the tenets of a religion versus offering a personal opinion judging the worthlessness of the religions of others. Verbiage is important, of course. It is often difficult to compose posts that state one's beliefs without having others feel put-down. I think Dr. Bob has moderated the Faith board in a way that allows for the inclusion of exclusionist religions, but that minimizes the potential for participants to feel judged or put-down.
>
> > C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
>
> I don't think that the Faith board is an invitation to agonize over the fact that there will be people expressing their subscription to alternate religions.
>
> D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
>
> I am not in a position to judge this, especially when I don't know what you wish to express. If it is your desire to post without punitive sanction something that has already been adjudicated by the moderator, perhaps you should enquire of the moderator if his judgment regarding your posts have changed. You could use email to do this.
>
> If you were to post a belief in a personal revelation that all gentiles are descended from Neanderthals (not that there is anything wrong with that), I think that this would be uncivil because this belief is not to be found in Jewish scripture, and would be considered to be a put-down by many gentiles, as Neanderthals are generally regarded to be inferior.
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote what I think is that if I was to post something that could be thought to be putting down others on the faith board, as in your example using Neanderthals, it would be putting down those others on the basis that it is not in Jewish scripture. I have the following questions that I would like for you to post answers to:
A. If what puts down is in the Jewish scriptures, would then that be allowed by you as that you consider that since it is in those scriptures that it is civil to post such?
B. The rule here is as I read it, that being supportive takes precedence and unsupportive statements on the faith board that are even in the bible do not override that. If an unsupportive statement is posted on the faith board unsanctioned by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and it is in the scriptures used by Abrahamic faiths, would you say that Mr. Hsiung lied when he wrote that being supportive takes precedence even if what is in question is in the bible?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 15:59:12
> > Hi Lou.
> >
> > I apologize for not following up on your post. You ask good questions.
> >
> > > True or False:
> >
> > > A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
> >
> > I don't think that this is the mission of the Faith board. However, many religions are exclusionist, and I think one must be able to tolerate this fact in order to participate on the board happily and with minimal stress.
> >
> > > B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
> >
> > There is a difference between describing accurately the tenets of a religion versus offering a personal opinion judging the worthlessness of the religions of others. Verbiage is important, of course. It is often difficult to compose posts that state one's beliefs without having others feel put-down. I think Dr. Bob has moderated the Faith board in a way that allows for the inclusion of exclusionist religions, but that minimizes the potential for participants to feel judged or put-down.
> >
> > > C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
> >
> > I don't think that the Faith board is an invitation to agonize over the fact that there will be people expressing their subscription to alternate religions.
> >
> > D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
> >
> > I am not in a position to judge this, especially when I don't know what you wish to express. If it is your desire to post without punitive sanction something that has already been adjudicated by the moderator, perhaps you should enquire of the moderator if his judgment regarding your posts have changed. You could use email to do this.
> >
> > If you were to post a belief in a personal revelation that all gentiles are descended from Neanderthals (not that there is anything wrong with that), I think that this would be uncivil because this belief is not to be found in Jewish scripture, and would be considered to be a put-down by many gentiles, as Neanderthals are generally regarded to be inferior.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> You wrote what I think is that if I was to post something that could be thought to be putting down others on the faith board, as in your example using Neanderthals, it would be putting down those others on the basis that it is not in Jewish scripture. I have the following questions that I would like for you to post answers to:
> A. If what puts down is in the Jewish scriptures, would then that be allowed by you as that you consider that since it is in those scriptures that it is civil to post such?
> B. The rule here is as I read it, that being supportive takes precedence and unsupportive statements on the faith board that are even in the bible do not override that. If an unsupportive statement is posted on the faith board unsanctioned by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and it is in the scriptures used by Abrahamic faiths, would you say that Mr. Hsiung lied when he wrote that being supportive takes precedence even if what is in question is in the bible?
> Lou
>
Friends,
Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
Posted by herpills on September 10, 2014, at 12:25:30
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
> Friends,
> Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
>Lou,
Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
Posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 13:04:16
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
> Friends,
> Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> Lou> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
Do you see any problems with this?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 15:17:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-liarliarpantzohnphyer » Lou Pilder, posted by herpills on September 10, 2014, at 12:25:30
> > Friends,
> > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> >
>
> Lou,
>
> Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
>
> herpills,
You wrote,[...where a statement from the bible {should} take precedence over being supportive..]
Now if I understand the context from where your statement came from, it could have been written:
[..Lou, could you provide a link to where a bible verse is posted that is not supportive and is allowed to be seen as supportive as being unsanctioned?...]
Now if that is what you were asking for me to do, let us look at what is in this link from a post here:
https://www.ds.org/scriptures/nt/John/5.39?lang=eng#28
That link is in this post if it does not actuate
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Now if we look at verse#39, that is an accusation made to those Jews. Accusations even if the poster is quoting someone else, is according to the rules t be not supportive.
Then in verse#42, another accusative statement that defames
Then in verse #46, a put down to those Jews
Then scrolling to verse #16, the false accusation of that the Jews were in a plot to kill Jesus is posted.
Then in verse #18, the same
Then in verse23, another accusation
Then in verse #38, another defamation
The bible verses are allowed to stand against my objections for years. They can arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I feel put down when I read them so other Jews could also feel put down when they read them. But it is much more than that. For this post is only one of many that defame the Jews or could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down that are allowed to stand and be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where they are originally posted.
The false characterization of the Jews depicted in those verses, could stereotype Jews here as being seen as validated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record as not being sanctioned. The put down of the Jews in those verses being allowed to stand devalues Judaism and could dehumanize a Jewish reader here that is in depression to lead them down a vortex of hopelessness culminating in their suicide.
Mr. Hsiung wants you to try to trust him in that he is allowing the statements to be seen as that the will be good for this community as a whole according to his thinking and that he is doing his best to be fair. Others in the historical record said the same and the historical record shows that otherwise. If you want to try to trust him in his allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be allowed o be posted here as civil and supportive, remember the historical record where those that propagated that they were doing what will be good for the country as a whole in allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be good for their country as a whole, and were proven to be liars.
Lou>
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 19:49:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 13:04:16
> > Friends,
> > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > Lou
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> Do you see any problems with this?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
Problems in what area?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2014, at 20:30:52
In reply to Lou's reply-pruvnlyerz » herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 15:17:14
Lou for some reason it seems that herpills meant and she or he may correct me if I totally misinterpreted it. That being supportive to others on the site. Is more important than reading a bible verse which by the way I don't read the bible. And no I'm not anti-semetic. I read it and see no reason to read it again. Phillipa
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.