![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 696 to 720 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 14:33:41
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion - nrcstldr, posted by bryte on September 6, 2014, at 14:28:51
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> "The support and information in this group are provided primarily by: other group members"
>
> A subset of readers could ask whether persistent use of and focus on I-statements could represent a subconscious effort by a host to select like-minded individuals.
>
> That subset or another subset could ask whether I-statements focused on what a service provider gives invitees could be symptomatic of narcissistic dimensions.
>
> That subset of readers might be informed by Belinda Jane Board's and Katarina Fritzon's 2005 study published in Psychology, Crime & Law that found an equivalent presence of narcissistic traits among senior business leaders and populations of psychiatric patients.
>
> The subset might contemplate whether a person with narcissistic traits employed in an institutional setting might create an independent business where the traits could be more freely realized.
>
> The subset might contemplate to what extent the structure of non-income-producing service business increases personal latitude for a sole owner as compared to a structure that relies on a panel of qualified leaders who help assure quality of service.
>
> To assess the presence of a narcissistic dimension, that subset of readers might consider whether a service provider:
>
> [*] demonstrates exaggerated self-importance as compared to the importance of peers, groups, communities or other individuals
>
> [*] demonstrates a more than usual desire for attention and admiration by publicizing the individual's ostensibly charitable activities
>
> [*] takes advantage of others to accomplish personal goals
>
> [*] demonstrates a decreased capacity to empathize with others, including exaggerating perceived group benefits related to the person's systematic activities known to embarrass guests
>
> [*] characterizes concerns as criticism, and demonstrates an exaggerated sensitivity to criticism, including enforcing sanctions against those who express concerns
>
> [*] claims a right to be recognized as superior, such as by claiming an experimental project demonstrates the best of all alternatives
>
> [*] exaggerates special achievements and talents, such as not correcting claims that give the subject original credit for technology freely obtained from someone else
>
> [*] represents prolonged conflict as beneficial by claiming the conflict better exposes those involved to the subject of the conflict
>
> Bryte,
In response to that Mr. Hsiung wrote,[...a subset of readers could think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate...], you wrote,[...to assess the presence of a narcissistic dimension, that subset of readers might consider whether a service provider...]
A. [...claims a right to be recognized as superior, such as by claiming an experimental project demonstrates the best of all alternatives...]
B. [...represents that prolonged conflict as beneficial by claiming the conflict better exposes those involved to the subject of the conflict...].
I think that you have a rational basis for posting those two in response to what Mr. Hsiung posted that a subset of readers could think that he is supporting the community as a whole by giving it the opportunity to deal with issues like hate if:
1. The target of the hate is myself and Jews by the nature that the discussion has me as the target person and that I am objecting to Mr. Hsiung allowing anti-Semitism and defamation toward me to be seen as civil where those statements are originally posted
and,
B. That if that was the case, a discussion of hate could take place here even if Mr. Hsiung posted his tagline to please be civil to the anti-Semitic statements that are in discussion.
But this could all be moot if what Mr. Hsiung posted ,to him means something else which I am awaiting his response to my questions to him for clarification of that.
But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see? And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive , and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
is deserved?
Lou
Posted by bryte on September 9, 2014, at 0:28:41
In reply to Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp » bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 14:33:41
> But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see?
>And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
> is deserved?
> LouThere is a rational basis for a subset of readers to conclude misinformed consent enforces acceptance of some flawed assumptions that:
1. No results are promised
2. If there are results, the results will be beneficial for a "group"
3. If one person suffers harm by way of embarrassment or otherwise, a greater number of persons will benefit.
4. Even if no individual benefits, the "group" may benefit.
4. A host's good intentions are sufficient to mitigate whatever harm any one person or group of persons suffers from activities claimed to benefit an amorphous stream of visitors classified as a group.Those assumptions do not fulfill the promises of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath addresses patients in the plural and in the singular. In no case does the oath address a physician's obligation to a group. It says a physician will prescribe regimens for the benefit of patients, but will not harm any one.
The oath does not say a physician will prescribe regimes that benefit some patients at the expense of others.
The oath does not say "I swear to do no harm... except when I am not involved in a doctor-patient relationship, at which time I may do things that are harmful to some but in my judgement may benefit others."
It says "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients." Every house. Whether wearing the stethoscope or the golf cleats. Whether entering as a practitioner or as a scholar. Whether as a private business owner hosting a milieu online at no cost to invitees or as a caregiver for an academic institution providing a confidential milieu under contractual employment obligations.
In no phrase of the Hippocratic Oath nor in standards of care expected of healthcare professionals -- on the job or otherwise -- are found expectations or justifications for a caregiver to provide non-emergency care for some knowing that others may suffer harm. When two alternatives exist, one which may harm some but theoretically benefit others, and the other alternative may do no harm and may benefit others, the least harmful option would always be better.
A physician may no more single out one person to endure greater harm for the good of a group than a physician may ethically administer lethal drugs under license of a court order. As Lou is wont to remind us, governments have at times licensed physicians to commit the most egregious harm, but that license does not make it ethical - nor lawful under international law.
Especially when a doctor invites visitors to a group in part for the purpose of informing case studies that fulfill a significant portion of his professional imperative to publish or perish a doctor must avoid situations that systematically embarrass, frustrate or disadvantage some invitees.
A subset of readers could consider it misguided for a physician to choose whom will enjoy protection of administrative interventions among a stream of visitors, and claim the administrator's privately held reason justifies overtly protecting some by publicly embarrassing those who may offend them while denying protection to others.
A less harmful means exists to reach the same end. Offending content can be removed. It is the practice used by the vast majority of service providers managing interaction among hundreds of millions of social media users.
An assertion that the better approach is to embarrass some members, some times, for the benefit of other visitors at other times requires evidence. That evidence is not found in the continuing disquiet and discomfort expressed among guests of this social network.
Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit others - certainly not in a non-emergency setting the physician created in part to provide cases for study. In triage situations, physicians may select some patients to receive care while others do not, but ethical doctors do not otherwise invite patients to join groups where some will ostensibly benefit by witnessing embarrassment of others.
Ethical physicians in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2014, at 6:29:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp, posted by bryte on September 9, 2014, at 0:28:41
> > But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see?
>
>
> >And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
> > is deserved?
> > Lou
>
> There is a rational basis for a subset of readers to conclude misinformed consent enforces acceptance of some flawed assumptions that:
>
> 1. No results are promised
> 2. If there are results, the results will be beneficial for a "group"
> 3. If one person suffers harm by way of embarrassment or otherwise, a greater number of persons will benefit.
> 4. Even if no individual benefits, the "group" may benefit.
> 4. A host's good intentions are sufficient to mitigate whatever harm any one person or group of persons suffers from activities claimed to benefit an amorphous stream of visitors classified as a group.
>
> Those assumptions do not fulfill the promises of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath addresses patients in the plural and in the singular. In no case does the oath address a physician's obligation to a group. It says a physician will prescribe regimens for the benefit of patients, but will not harm any one.
>
> The oath does not say a physician will prescribe regimes that benefit some patients at the expense of others.
>
> The oath does not say "I swear to do no harm... except when I am not involved in a doctor-patient relationship, at which time I may do things that are harmful to some but in my judgement may benefit others."
>
> It says "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients." Every house. Whether wearing the stethoscope or the golf cleats. Whether entering as a practitioner or as a scholar. Whether as a private business owner hosting a milieu online at no cost to invitees or as a caregiver for an academic institution providing a confidential milieu under contractual employment obligations.
>
> In no phrase of the Hippocratic Oath nor in standards of care expected of healthcare professionals -- on the job or otherwise -- are found expectations or justifications for a caregiver to provide non-emergency care for some knowing that others may suffer harm. When two alternatives exist, one which may harm some but theoretically benefit others, and the other alternative may do no harm and may benefit others, the least harmful option would always be better.
>
> A physician may no more single out one person to endure greater harm for the good of a group than a physician may ethically administer lethal drugs under license of a court order. As Lou is wont to remind us, governments have at times licensed physicians to commit the most egregious harm, but that license does not make it ethical - nor lawful under international law.
>
> Especially when a doctor invites visitors to a group in part for the purpose of informing case studies that fulfill a significant portion of his professional imperative to publish or perish a doctor must avoid situations that systematically embarrass, frustrate or disadvantage some invitees.
>
> A subset of readers could consider it misguided for a physician to choose whom will enjoy protection of administrative interventions among a stream of visitors, and claim the administrator's privately held reason justifies overtly protecting some by publicly embarrassing those who may offend them while denying protection to others.
>
> A less harmful means exists to reach the same end. Offending content can be removed. It is the practice used by the vast majority of service providers managing interaction among hundreds of millions of social media users.
>
> An assertion that the better approach is to embarrass some members, some times, for the benefit of other visitors at other times requires evidence. That evidence is not found in the continuing disquiet and discomfort expressed among guests of this social network.
>
> Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit others - certainly not in a non-emergency setting the physician created in part to provide cases for study. In triage situations, physicians may select some patients to receive care while others do not, but ethical doctors do not otherwise invite patients to join groups where some will ostensibly benefit by witnessing embarrassment of others.
>
> Ethical physicians in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue.
>
Bryte,
I appreciate your statements here that show that harm could be an outcome from Mr. Hsiung selecting which statements he will sanction and that you do see it. But it is much more than that.
You may already know that Mr. Hsiung has stated that he will act on notifications except that he will give himself the option of leaving my notifications outstanding. It is his thinking that what he does will be good for this community as a whole, and that readers are to try to *trust* him at that.
My question here is if you can see that by asking readers to trust him when he leaves harmful anti-Semitic and defamatory statements against me here to be seen as civil where they are originally posted, and by him using what a subset of readers could think to be using evasion and discrimination,in your opinion could constitute malicious actions to promote hatred toward the Jews and hostility toward me.
Let us look at this post:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:28
In reply to Re: doesn't even mean it's not against the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> >
> > Right:
> >
> > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting people to believe when they read that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly
True or false:
A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:29
In reply to Lou's reply- it's not against the rules » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 8:31:20
> True or false:
> A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.False.
> B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
False.
> C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
> > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
> D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
False.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:30
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2014, at 17:51:55
> > True or false:
> > A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
>
> False.
>
> > B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
>
> False.
>
> > C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
>
> You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
>
> > > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
>
> > D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
>
> False.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in your answer to "D".
To clarify this, I would like for you to look at:
[ faith, 414011 ]
and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
My concern is in my question to you I had asked if links to anti-Semitic propaganda could be posted here and then Jews are to trust you in that you are being fair and doing what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You answered, "false"
So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:31
In reply to Lou's reply-untaged » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2014, at 19:35:46
> > > True or false:
> > > A.I am going to re write my TOS/FAQ, Lou, from please do not post *anything* that could lead one to feel put down or accused to, please do not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down or accused unless what you post could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down, or unless you are posting defamation toward those that I select to be defamed here.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > > B. I want all Jews. Lou, to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen here as civil and supportive where they are originally posted.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > > C. You can post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, in the babblemail feature even though the rule is that what is uncivil there is treated the same as what is uncivil on the boards.
> >
> > You may if you wish. The actual rule is:
> >
> > > > I don't monitor babblemail directly, but ask recipients to contact me if they feel it's been abused. If it comes to that, the usual civility guidelines will apply.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#babblemail
> >
> > > D. Posters can post links here to anti-Semitic propaganda and you are to try and trust me, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair and to do what will be good for this community as a whole by allowing links to anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in your answer to "D".
> To clarify this, I would like for you to look at:
> [ faith, 414011 ]
> and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> My concern is in my question to you I had asked if links to anti-Semitic propaganda could be posted here and then Jews are to trust you in that you are being fair and doing what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You answered, "false"
> So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
> LouMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
In the post there is an offered link to John 5. In that link there are verses that are in question that I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean un that your answer here being 'false" to that posters can post links that have anti-Semitic content and that you want readers to try to trust you and that you are doing what will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking to allow the statements in question to be seen as supportive.
So do you want readers to not trust you in that by you allowing the link with the statements in question to be seen as civil by you and that it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by you since you have not posted your tagline to please be civil to the post?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:21:06
In reply to Lou's reply-untaged-1070996, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:15:31
> I would like for you to look at:
> [ faith, 414011 ]
> and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
--
> Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> In the post there is an offered link to John 5.In which post? This one by you?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2014, at 3:40:59
> > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
>
> True, a subset of readers could think that.
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.I'd like to revise that:
A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:10:03
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 10:21:06
> > I would like for you to look at:
> > [ faith, 414011 ]
> > and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> > So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
>
> If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
>
> --
>
> > Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> > In the post there is an offered link to John 5.
>
> In which post? This one by you?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
IN order to actuate what is in question about that the post uses {the only way}, we can do this by first:
A. Pulling up the post [ faith, 414011 ]
In order to have that post and no other, the 414011 has to be in the url strip, not in the subject line.
B. Then when that is pulled up, we go to the bottom of that page by the poster to see my response to the poster.
C. My response is to the article that the poster offers a link to, so we click on the link and go to P:314
D There in 314 is the phrase,{the only way}.
When I use your link, does it not go to a different article that also uses the {only way}? If so, then we have two different statements using the only way, one you addressed, but I do not see the one that I am bringing up to be addressed by you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:24:33
In reply to Lou's reply- Th Hsiung-Pildr discussion-tuonlywaze » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:10:03
> > > I would like for you to look at:
> > > [ faith, 414011 ]
> > > and follow the link offered by the poster that on the page in reference, the use of {only}.
> > > So is the statement in the link a statement that you do not want Jews to trust you in that you are trying to be fair and doing what in your thinking as a whole by you allowing the statement in the link to go without your tagline to please be civil?
> >
> > If you have in mind the link I think you do, I did address it:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/418568.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Now let us look at [ admin, 1070996 ].
> > > In the post there is an offered link to John 5.
> >
> > In which post? This one by you?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> IN order to actuate what is in question about that the post uses {the only way}, we can do this by first:
> A. Pulling up the post [ faith, 414011 ]
> In order to have that post and no other, the 414011 has to be in the url strip, not in the subject line.
> B. Then when that is pulled up, we go to the bottom of that page by the poster to see my response to the poster.
> C. My response is to the article that the poster offers a link to, so we click on the link and go to P:314
> D There in 314 is the phrase,{the only way}.
> When I use your link, does it not go to a different article that also uses the {only way}? If so, then we have two different statements using the only way, one you addressed, but I do not see the one that I am bringing up to be addressed by you.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
I have reviewed this part and the two articles by the poster are the same. What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised. But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:51:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
> > > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
> >
> > True, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> I'd like to revise that:
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> Bob
Mr Hsiung,
You wrote:
[..I'd like to revise that:
A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely...]Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself and that you think that it will be good for his community as a whole to do so. As to if that is likely for me as a Jew to feel put down, or to feel that Judaism is being put down when I read the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed here to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, I do not see any rational basis for anyone to think that it is unlikely for a Jew to feel put down when they see anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as civil and supportive by you here. If there are Jews that do not feel put down when they see the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, that does not mean that I have to not feel put down when I read those statements being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
The defamation toward the Jews in anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen as supportive here, goes to all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. And a subset of readers could think
that you are using a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic hate to stand. I think those readers could have a rational reason to think that because you keep changing what you have written, which could lead a subset of readers to think that malice is what is driving you to keep the anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil and supportive by you and your deputies of record here. They could have a rational basis to think that because you keep changing what you write in an attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to stand where defamation to a group of people can cause harm and those readers could think that you know that and are doing it anyway.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 16:41:35
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ovphoartht » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 11:51:47
> What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
> But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
--
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itselfExactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 9:30:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 11:07:45
> > > you state that support takes precedence. That means what it means. In what you have written here, what takes precedence is what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. In allowing what is not supportive to be posted without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you have lied when you posted that support takes precedence.
> >
> > True, a subset of readers could think that.
> >
> > A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate.
>
> I'd like to revise that:
>
> A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...A subset of readers could also think that I'm supporting the community as a whole by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate...].
You reply to me here comes from that I am in discussion with you to remediate posts that show anti-Semitic propaganda and statements that could lead me as a Jew to feel that my faith is being put down and that defamation also is posted here toward me that these statements can be seen as supportive where they are originally posted here on the basis that those posts with those statements are not sanctioned and your policy is that being supportive takes precedence so a subset of readers could think that the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation unsanctioned is considered to be supportive by you and that it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking for that to be seen on the basis that your TOS states that people are to try to trust you in what you do here because in your thinking it will be good for this community as a whole.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here. You say that you now want to revise what you said to be that there could also be some readers to think that because you are not sanctioning (those posts) which are those in discussion concerning the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation in question in this discussion {because the outcomes that you(Lou) fear are unlikely}.
This could mean that your revision does not replace your original statement that you are supporting the community by giving it an opportunity to deal with issues like hate, but as I read it, there are now two reasons stated by you to me here for the anti-Semitic propaganda to be unsanctioned which could lead readers to think that anti-Semitism and defamation toward me here is supportive on the basis that you say that [...a subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you (Lou) fear are unlikely...].
In your first reason to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned, if you are wanting to mean that your intent for leaving the statements unsanctioned is so there could be a discussion about hate, I do not think that for a discussion of hate to take place here that anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation against me needs to be left unsanctioned in order for that type of discussion to take place on the basis that I think that type of discussion could take place even if those statements were sanctioned by you, could it not? If not, why not?
And if your intent was to leave the anti-Semitism and defamation in question unsanctioned so that you could provide a forum for a discussion of hate, I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here, nor does your revision erase what I feel from the anti-Semitism and defamation against me being allowed to be seen here as supportive by you where those posts are originally posted. You see, you agree that discrimination is considered to be an abuse of power. And discrimination could stigmatize those discriminated upon. Stigmatization can hurt recipients of that, and being the recipient of hate being allowed here to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 10:27:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 16:41:35
> > What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> > What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.
>
> True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
>
> > But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
>
> You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
>
> but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
>
> --
>
> > > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
> >
> > Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself
>
> Exactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote [... a subset of readers could think that it is unlikely that my actions, (Lou), would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith...].
Your actions could be that you will not post a repudiation to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them. If that is what you mean, there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed. And your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down, which is not overruled in your TOS/FAQ by that someone else may not think that.
Those that think that your actions of allowing antisemitism to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted, have a rational basis to think that your actions at least have IMHO the potential to think that your actions could lead Jews to feel that your are putting down their faith because you say that being supportive takes precedence and that statements that put down those of other faiths or could lead one to think that their faith is being put down, are not supportive. And the fact that you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, that subset of readers could think that you are putting down Jews because you think that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so by allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here. Your actions could then be considered by that subset of readers to constitute creating and developing anti-Semitic hate here, by controlling what is considered to be supportive by your thinking by saying that being supportive takes precedence.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 18:51:12
In reply to Lou's reply- Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cret/devl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 10:27:18
> > > What the issue here involves, is as if you sanctioned the post or not
> > > What you did was to ask the poster to revise it, which I do not see any revision of {the only way} to be understood by readers This means that since the poster did not revise it, then readers could think that what is in question is supportive because you allowed it to remain unrevised.
> >
> > True. Readers could also think it wasn't supportive because I asked for it to be revised.
> >
> > > But the whole idea of allowing to be revised is what I object to because how can you revise someone else's quote?
> >
> > You could quote less. Apparently there was a way to do that:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/427644.html
> >
> > but that doesn't seem to work now. I guess they changed their search engine.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > A subset of readers could also think that I'm not sanctioning those posts because the outcomes you fear are unlikely.
> > >
> > > Now there could be or there could not be a rationale basis for that subset of readers to think that. The issue is that I am objecting that you are allowing statements to be seen as civil and supportive that could arouse antisemitic feelings, lead Jews to feel put down, lead Jews to feel that their faith is being put down and statements that put down Jews or Judaism itself
> >
> > Exactly, a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote [... a subset of readers could think that it is unlikely that my actions, (Lou), would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith...].
> Your actions could be that you will not post a repudiation to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them. If that is what you mean, there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed. And your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down, which is not overruled in your TOS/FAQ by that someone else may not think that.
> Those that think that your actions of allowing antisemitism to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted, have a rational basis to think that your actions at least have IMHO the potential to think that your actions could lead Jews to feel that your are putting down their faith because you say that being supportive takes precedence and that statements that put down those of other faiths or could lead one to think that their faith is being put down, are not supportive. And the fact that you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, that subset of readers could think that you are putting down Jews because you think that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so by allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here. Your actions could then be considered by that subset of readers to constitute creating and developing anti-Semitic hate here, by controlling what is considered to be supportive by your thinking by saying that being supportive takes precedence.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Now let us look at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070996.html
In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it, so since you say that when you do ask for a revision that means that you think that there is what is unsupportive in the link, then readers could think that since you have not posted to revise to the poster, then what is in the link is supportive.
I am asking for you to consider the following:
I would like for you to post something like:
A. Readers, I know that the statements in the verses that Lou is asking for me to post a repudiation to are as he says. But I want you to know that I do not consider those verses that Lou is bringing here to our attention to be supportive.
B. Readers, I know that there could be a subset of readers that could think that I am not posting a sanction to the anti-Semitic statements here so that hate could be discussed. But I want you to know that the reason that I am not posting a sanction to those statements is different from that.
C. Readers, I know that there could be a subset of readers to think that I am not posting sanctions to the statements in question here that are part of historical anti-Semitic propaganda because by me allowing those to be seen as supportive, hatred toward the Jews could be created and developed by me. But I want you to know that is not the reason that I am leaving those statements to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted
If you could post all 3 of those, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2014, at 20:49:28
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ehynoe, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2014, at 18:51:12
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
--
> > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
>
> there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.True.
--
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:04:22
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2014, at 20:49:28
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
>
> You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
>
> 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
>
> 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
>
> > I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
>
> Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
>
> --
>
> > > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> >
> > there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.
>
> True.
>
> --
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
>
> > In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
>
> No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that a deputy did sanction that post.
What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
And anyway, you say that the poster could post any link even with anti-Semitic propaganda. And then you say that the poster could continue posting as long as they rephrase what is in the link. I see no request to the poster of the post in question that has John 5 in an offered link to rephrase what is in that link.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:23:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phntum » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:04:22
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
> >
> > You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
> >
> > 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
> >
> > 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> >
> > > I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
> >
> > Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> > >
> > > there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> >
> > > In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
> >
> > No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that a deputy did sanction that post.
> What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
> And anyway, you say that the poster could post any link even with anti-Semitic propaganda. And then you say that the poster could continue posting as long as they rephrase what is in the link. I see no request to the poster of the post in question that has John 5 in an offered link to rephrase what is in that link.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[..my policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
But your policy is that being supportive takes precedence. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. A subset of readers could think that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking.
When a subset of readers see that you will not sanction anti-Semitic propaganda because it is archived, they could think that it is not against your rules even with that you posted that you should revise what you said here about that. For the revision is only seen in that one post and is not made know in your FAQ of your changing your mind about your rule. The outcome from that could have tragic consequences to Jews as the historical record shows and as we speak anti-Semitic acts are committed all over the world fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda coming from the internet. A subset of readers here could think that anti-Semitism is supportive in your thinking on the basis that you say that support takes precedence and that you will not sanction archived posts that contain anti-Semitic content and that you changed your rule from to not post links with anti-Semitic content, period, to that one can post links with anti-Semitic content as long as they post another link that omits the antisemitic content. But the original link is still there. And the poster was not told to revise the link with the link to John 5 in it and did not post another substitute link.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:54:02
In reply to Re: posts in the archives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:40:51
> > 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.
>
> My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).
>
> > 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?
>
> What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...My policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
I have the following requests:
A. Would you be willing to post a {disclaimer}, which could not constitute a sanction, to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record?
B. If you would be willing to post a disclaimer, would you be willing to post something like the following to those posts that I have alerted you to that have antisemitic statements in them being allowed to be seen as supportive?
1. Readers,I know that a subset of readers could see that there is anti-Jewish thought that me and my deputies of record are allowing to be seen as supportive by us. And that could lead those readers to think that we are ratifying the anti-Jewish thought to be supportive by us. But be advised that I think that it will be good for this community as a whole to keep those statements without a disclaimer even though by allowing the statements that put down Jews to be seen as supportive by us could make it possible for antisemitsm to flourish here, but we disclaim that we are ratifying what the anti-Semitic statements purport and we will not post why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by us.
2. Readers, I know that there are statements here that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down being allowed to be seen as supportive by me and my deputies of record. But be advised that even though I have stated that my policy is that being supportive takes precedence, it is better for us and the community as a whole in my thinking, to leave what could expose Jews to harm, for we think it will be best for the benefit of some others, and for the community as a whole, to let the harm that could come to Jews to continue even though we could have posted a sanction when the post was initially posted, and we could post a sanction now, because we have a policy that overrules our policy that being supportive takes precedence.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 21:54:03
In reply to Lou's request- policy overules being supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2014, at 7:09:34
> > > 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.
> >
> > My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).
> >
> > > 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?
> >
> > What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...My policy is to not sanction archived posts...].
> I have the following requests:
> A. Would you be willing to post a {disclaimer}, which could not constitute a sanction, to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record?
> B. If you would be willing to post a disclaimer, would you be willing to post something like the following to those posts that I have alerted you to that have antisemitic statements in them being allowed to be seen as supportive?
> 1. Readers,I know that a subset of readers could see that there is anti-Jewish thought that me and my deputies of record are allowing to be seen as supportive by us. And that could lead those readers to think that we are ratifying the anti-Jewish thought to be supportive by us. But be advised that I think that it will be good for this community as a whole to keep those statements without a disclaimer even though by allowing the statements that put down Jews to be seen as supportive by us could make it possible for antisemitsm to flourish here, but we disclaim that we are ratifying what the anti-Semitic statements purport and we will not post why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statements to be seen as supportive by us.
> 2. Readers, I know that there are statements here that could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down being allowed to be seen as supportive by me and my deputies of record. But be advised that even though I have stated that my policy is that being supportive takes precedence, it is better for us and the community as a whole in my thinking, to leave what could expose Jews to harm, for we think it will be best for the benefit of some others, and for the community as a whole, to let the harm that could come to Jews to continue even though we could have posted a sanction when the post was initially posted, and we could post a sanction now, because we have a policy that overrules our policy that being supportive takes precedence.
> "Dr. Bob"
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Here are some posst that if you are agreeing to post a disclaimer to posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda in them allowed to be seen as supportive by you and your deputies of record, that would like for you to post some type of disclaimer that shows that you and your deputes of record are not validating the anti-Semitic propaganda.
Lou Pilder
A. [ admin, 428781 ]
B. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
In the above, since you said that you think that it is good, I would like for you to post why you think it is good so that I can post my response to you.
C. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1004107.html
In the above, the statement in question is,[...made to suffer a horrible death by {them}
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 19, 2014, at 14:52:15
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2014, at 20:49:28
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think here by you now saying that you want to revise what you posted to me here.
>
> You know, I'm unsure myself as to what charges I was defending myself against. Let's start from here:
>
> 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
>
> 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
>
> > I did not give you my permission to be a subject person to be a target of hate here
>
> Do you not want to be a target of hate? Would you rather be a target of love? Or not the target of any feelings at all?
>
> --
>
> > > a subset of readers could think it's unlikely that my actions would lead Jews to feel I'm putting down their faith.
> >
> > there could be a subset of readers that think otherwise than your subset proposed.
>
> True.
>
> --
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
>
> > In this post, there is an offered link by the poster at the end of that post that goes to John 5. There are verses in that link that are in question that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to. I see no post by you asking for the poster to revise it
>
> No, but a deputy did sanction that post:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
>
> BobMr. Hsung,
You wrote,[...I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely...].
There could be a subset of readers to think that what you wrote is a lie based on the dictionary used here to decide what words mean and that dictionary says that a false statement could be a lie without the person intending to deceive, but the person could intend to deceive.
Those readers could have a rational basis to think that what you wrote is a lie because you have posted your reason for not responding to the notifications that my reminders posted here show, which span years. You gave your reason as that it would be good for you and the community as a whole to do so. That is different from that you now say that you do not respond to those notifications from me because you consider the outcomes by me to be unlikely.
The notifications are according to your TOS here in regards to that when sees a statement that is against your rules, and you allow it to be seen as supportive, that the notification procedure could be used to alert you of an uncivil and unsupportive statement such as one that puts down or accuses or leads one to feel that their faith is being put down or is an anti-Semitic statement and language that could offend others and more. It is not the outcome as if , let's say, the poster that is being defamed will kill themselves if the statement is allowed to be seen as supportive, and you and your deputies of record do not think so, so you will allow it to stand, but could anyone know that, if that is what you mean by the outcome? It is what is posted that can be seen that determines if a statement is uncivil and not supportive, as to if the statement puts down or accuses or is anti-Semitic or such as you say in your rules. I took you at your word when you posted your rule and here is a link to the rule.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/699224.html
As to if your intent is to deceive, that could be made in the minds of readers that understand how intent is determined. They could also see that you also stated something like that if others see you not respond to me, then they might not respond to me. Those readers that consider what you wrote that is in question here to be a lie, could also see what could go to being your intent And when they see that you gave permission to the poster that has posted the link to John 5 to keep posting links that have anti-Semitic propaganda in it by you telling the poster to revise it by posting a substitute link while the original link with the anti-Semitism remains to be seen, they could put that together with what they think is a lie by you here in relation to why you have not responded to my notifications spanning years. You see, your rule in your TOS/FAQ that I have never seen to be changed by you, is to not post what could lead someone to feel that they are being put down, even if they are quoting someone else, and a link can be quoting someone else. This subset of readers could think that your intent is to accommodate antisemitism by giving a system where a poster can post anti-Semitism in a link, at their will, then you say to revise it and they post something else and then go on to the next link with anti-Semitic propaganda in it and repeat the system over and over. By doing that, those readers that think that what you have posted here in question to be a lie, could also think that you gave the system to that poster to create and develop anti-Semitic hate here and also since there is defamation posted here against me that can be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, those readers could also think that an intent in what can be seen could be to inflict emotional distress upon me and Jews throughout the world, for the anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen as supportive, goes to all Jews, not Just me. And worse, because you say that you do not sanction what is archived, those readers could think that if I sent a notification to you and all of your deputies and you all were indifferent to the notification, and then it was archived, it was then you and your deputies of record that allowed it to be archived, which could be thought to constitute deceit by those readers that think that what you posted here to me that is in question, is a lie.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2014, at 2:05:14
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
> > a deputy did sanction that post:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
>
> What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.That link is to the post by the deputy. It's in reply to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
which is the post with the link to John 5.
--
> > > 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
>
> But your policy is that being supportive takes precedence. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.True, I think not sanctioning archived posts is good for this community as a whole.
> A subset of readers could think that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking.
True, they could think my real intent is different.
--
> > 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
>
> readers could have a rational basis to think that what you wrote is a lie because you have posted your reason for not responding to the notifications that my reminders posted here show, which span years. You gave your reason as that it would be good for you and the community as a whole to do so. That is different from that you now say that you do not respond to those notifications from me because you consider the outcomes by me to be unlikely.True, they're different, but I think not responding to every fear of an unlikely outcome is good for this community as a whole.
You know, I didn't like having a policy (making your notifications an exception) that was personal. My policy is not to have policies that are personal. But you've successfully pushed me to articulate my rationale, and therefore a general (impersonal) policy. I feel better. Thanks, Lou.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2014, at 11:20:50
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2014, at 2:05:14
> > > a deputy did sanction that post:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
> >
> > What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
>
> That link is to the post by the deputy. It's in reply to:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
>
> which is the post with the link to John 5.
>
> --
>
> > > > 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
> >
> > But your policy is that being supportive takes precedence. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> True, I think not sanctioning archived posts is good for this community as a whole.
>
> > A subset of readers could think that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking.
>
> True, they could think my real intent is different.
>
> --
>
> > > 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> >
> > readers could have a rational basis to think that what you wrote is a lie because you have posted your reason for not responding to the notifications that my reminders posted here show, which span years. You gave your reason as that it would be good for you and the community as a whole to do so. That is different from that you now say that you do not respond to those notifications from me because you consider the outcomes by me to be unlikely.
>
> True, they're different, but I think not responding to every fear of an unlikely outcome is good for this community as a whole.
>
> You know, I didn't like having a policy (making your notifications an exception) that was personal. My policy is not to have policies that are personal. But you've successfully pushed me to articulate my rationale, and therefore a general (impersonal) policy. I feel better. Thanks, Lou.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...My policy is to not have policies that are personal. But you have successfully pushed me to articulate my rationale, and therefore a general policy. I feel better.Thanks, Lou...].
By articulating your rationale, as I see what you have posted here as, {...I think that by not responding to every fear of an unlikely outcome is good for this community as a whole...} to be your rationale, I find that what you have posted as your rationale here, if what I have put in the brackets here is your rationale, to not in any way whatsoever in my thinking, make what you wrote to change what you say is a {personal policy} to a general policy. My rational basis for thinking that is because your policy that you used me in is:
[...When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the poster that notified me. One exception is that right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
Your stated rationale for leaving my notifications outstanding is that it may be good for you and the community as a whole to do so.
Let us look at what you have written:
A. When I am notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the poster who notified me.
There are no exceptions listed by you there. You see, the notifications are what a poster thinks in that existing rules are not being applied to a statement so you could be alerted to apply your rules. As to the poster having a fear, let's say, that by you allowing an anti-Semitic statement to be seen as supportive and then alerts you by using your procedure to apply your rule, your policy is to then either respond on the board enforcing the rule of yours or notifying the poster that sent the notification. My reminders show that neither was done by you or any of your deputies of record. These reminders span years, way before you posted that some of my notifications you would leave outstanding, as me being the only person the exception is for.
B. As far as that you say that it will be good for you and the community as a whole to not respond to my notifications, that could mean to a subset of readers that you are creating n anti-Semitic policy for yourself and this community to deny me the use of your own procedure to have anti-Semitic statements addressed by using the notification procedure that you admit you are denying me to use as I am the only exception. And since you have not allowed me to have equal protection of your rules and policies, then those subsets of readers that understand that anti-Semitism can be developed in a community by discriminating against the Jewish person in regards to having a policy that denies the Jew equality in the rules, a subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive in your thinking because by you denying me the equal protection of your rules in relation to you not responding to my notifications, the anti-Semitic statements could then go into the archives where you say that you will not sanction them there. But it is you and your deputies of record that allowed them to be archived by not responding to my notifications when you and those deputies or record could have done so if they wanted to. But by years of not responding to my notifications, a pattern can be deduced as to the intent of you and your deputies of record by those that understand how motive can be deduced from what is in the record.
Your articulated rationale as I see it, purports that you are responding to fears by me in some way if you respond to my notifications and therefore you can not respond. I do not consider that making your personal policy into a general policy, but just some type of justification that you are wanting to use to justify discrimination in the applying of your rules, which is an abuse of power. You see, it has not be good for communities as a whole in the historical record to leave defamation against people and anti-Semitic and ant-Islamic propaganda to be seen as supportive, and as here, where it is originally posted so I see no reason for your community to somehow be improved by you allowing insults and hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and others and defamation toward me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
I think that if you went to the post where {no non-Christian...}is posted and opened it up and you typed right there in the post by the poster and addendum like an editor's note, something like:
operator's note:
be advised that we do not consider the statement, [no non-Christian will...] to be supportive and I have a self-made policy that if I sanction a statement in a post, I can leave another unsupportive statement to stand so that the poster doesn't feel to bad. This may mean that some readers could think that I am allowing their faith to be seen as being put down and insulted by a third -party and could have a rational basis to think that because my rule is not to post anything that could lead someone to feel put down....].
Now if you were to take remedial steps like I have outlined here for that post, then the fear that I have that Islamic people and Jews and all others that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian could think that you are insulting Islam and those faiths by allowing the statement to stand un repudiated, then the fear of those people in those faith becoming victims of anti-Semitic and anti Islamic violence could be alleviated.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2014, at 11:50:54
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gnurul? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2014, at 11:20:50
> > > > a deputy did sanction that post:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656375.html
> > >
> > > What the deputy sanctioned is shown as in the link that you posted here which is a different post. That post does not offer a link to John 5. If you click on the link that you offered here as that you say the deputy sanctioned, there is not an offered link at all.
> >
> > That link is to the post by the deputy. It's in reply to:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> >
> > which is the post with the link to John 5.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > > 1. My policy is not to sanction archived posts.
> > >
> > > But your policy is that being supportive takes precedence. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
> >
> > True, I think not sanctioning archived posts is good for this community as a whole.
> >
> > > A subset of readers could think that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking.
> >
> > True, they could think my real intent is different.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > > 2. I'm not responding to all of your notifications because I consider the outcomes you fear to be unlikely. I am responding to you in this thread because I value your point of view and don't want to dismiss your concerns.
> > >
> > > readers could have a rational basis to think that what you wrote is a lie because you have posted your reason for not responding to the notifications that my reminders posted here show, which span years. You gave your reason as that it would be good for you and the community as a whole to do so. That is different from that you now say that you do not respond to those notifications from me because you consider the outcomes by me to be unlikely.
> >
> > True, they're different, but I think not responding to every fear of an unlikely outcome is good for this community as a whole.
> >
> > You know, I didn't like having a policy (making your notifications an exception) that was personal. My policy is not to have policies that are personal. But you've successfully pushed me to articulate my rationale, and therefore a general (impersonal) policy. I feel better. Thanks, Lou.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...My policy is to not have policies that are personal. But you have successfully pushed me to articulate my rationale, and therefore a general policy. I feel better.Thanks, Lou...].
> By articulating your rationale, as I see what you have posted here as, {...I think that by not responding to every fear of an unlikely outcome is good for this community as a whole...} to be your rationale, I find that what you have posted as your rationale here, if what I have put in the brackets here is your rationale, to not in any way whatsoever in my thinking, make what you wrote to change what you say is a {personal policy} to a general policy. My rational basis for thinking that is because your policy that you used me in is:
> [...When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the poster that notified me. One exception is that right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding...].
> Your stated rationale for leaving my notifications outstanding is that it may be good for you and the community as a whole to do so.
> Let us look at what you have written:
> A. When I am notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the poster who notified me.
> There are no exceptions listed by you there. You see, the notifications are what a poster thinks in that existing rules are not being applied to a statement so you could be alerted to apply your rules. As to the poster having a fear, let's say, that by you allowing an anti-Semitic statement to be seen as supportive and then alerts you by using your procedure to apply your rule, your policy is to then either respond on the board enforcing the rule of yours or notifying the poster that sent the notification. My reminders show that neither was done by you or any of your deputies of record. These reminders span years, way before you posted that some of my notifications you would leave outstanding, as me being the only person the exception is for.
> B. As far as that you say that it will be good for you and the community as a whole to not respond to my notifications, that could mean to a subset of readers that you are creating n anti-Semitic policy for yourself and this community to deny me the use of your own procedure to have anti-Semitic statements addressed by using the notification procedure that you admit you are denying me to use as I am the only exception. And since you have not allowed me to have equal protection of your rules and policies, then those subsets of readers that understand that anti-Semitism can be developed in a community by discriminating against the Jewish person in regards to having a policy that denies the Jew equality in the rules, a subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive in your thinking because by you denying me the equal protection of your rules in relation to you not responding to my notifications, the anti-Semitic statements could then go into the archives where you say that you will not sanction them there. But it is you and your deputies of record that allowed them to be archived by not responding to my notifications when you and those deputies or record could have done so if they wanted to. But by years of not responding to my notifications, a pattern can be deduced as to the intent of you and your deputies of record by those that understand how motive can be deduced from what is in the record.
> Your articulated rationale as I see it, purports that you are responding to fears by me in some way if you respond to my notifications and therefore you can not respond. I do not consider that making your personal policy into a general policy, but just some type of justification that you are wanting to use to justify discrimination in the applying of your rules, which is an abuse of power. You see, it has not be good for communities as a whole in the historical record to leave defamation against people and anti-Semitic and ant-Islamic propaganda to be seen as supportive, and as here, where it is originally posted so I see no reason for your community to somehow be improved by you allowing insults and hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and others and defamation toward me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
> I think that if you went to the post where {no non-Christian...}is posted and opened it up and you typed right there in the post by the poster and addendum like an editor's note, something like:
> operator's note:
> be advised that we do not consider the statement, [no non-Christian will...] to be supportive and I have a self-made policy that if I sanction a statement in a post, I can leave another unsupportive statement to stand so that the poster doesn't feel to bad. This may mean that some readers could think that I am allowing their faith to be seen as being put down and insulted by a third -party and could have a rational basis to think that because my rule is not to post anything that could lead someone to feel put down....].
> Now if you were to take remedial steps like I have outlined here for that post, then the fear that I have that Islamic people and Jews and all others that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian could think that you are insulting Islam and those faiths by allowing the statement to stand un repudiated, then the fear of those people in those faith becoming victims of anti-Semitic and anti Islamic violence could be alleviated.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Here is another post that has contained in it what many include as anti-Semitic propaganda.
The poster offers a link that goes to Matthew 27. The entire passage has been used historically by those that wanted to persecute the Jews and commit mass-murder as attempting to justify their hatred toward the Jews from verses in that chapter.
The link stands today being allowed to be seen as supportive by you and all of your deputies of record. In order for my fear of a subset of readers taking the passage as thinking that you want it to remain to be seen as supportive, I am asking that you open the post and type in right in the post itself something like:
operator's note:
Be advised that we do not consider what is written about the Jews in the offered link to Matthew 27, including but not limited to verse 25, to be supportive. We all gave this poster a venue to post anti-Semitic propaganda so long as the poster posted another statement that did not contain the anti-Semitic propaganda after we asked the poster to revise the link. Here we did not ask the poster to post a revision of what is in the link so a subset of readers could think that we want to advance anti-Semitism here by allowing the passage that is considered by Jews and many others to be anti-Semitic propaganda, such as but nut limited to,[...his blood be...]as in verse 25 to be seen as supportive.
"Dr. Bob and his deputies"
Lou PIlder
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.