![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 7:11:19
In reply to Re: Lou - ansrthfrgnqustn » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 22:35:10
> > > > > > 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..]
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
>
> > > > Problems in what area?
>
> > > What are my choices?
>
> > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
>
> I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
>
> I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
>
>
> - Scott
> Scott,
What do you mean by "problem"?
Lou
>
>
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 8:21:54
In reply to Lou's reply- - ansrthfr*gnqustn » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 7:11:19
> > > > > > > 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..]
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > Problems in what area?
> >
> > > > What are my choices?
> >
> > > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
> >
> > I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
> >
> > I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> > Scott,
> What do you mean by "problem"?Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 8:51:13
In reply to Re: Lou - qustnansrd (wsntthtez?) » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 8:21:54
> > > > > > > > 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..]
> > > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > Problems in what area?
> > >
> > > > > What are my choices?
> > >
> > > > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
> > >
> > > I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
> > >
> > > I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > > Scott,
> > What do you mean by "problem"?
>
> Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
>
> Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
>
> So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence. This could mean that since there is not a statement that Mr.Hsiung makes to allow bible verses that are not supportive, that could, let's say, put down Jews, then there are posts with anti-Semitic content that are allowed to be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking on the basis that those statements in question are allowed to stand unsanctioned which could lead a subset of readers to think that they are condoned here as civil and those readers also could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating the hate involved in anti-Semitism in those posts. This could create in a subset of readers a ratification of hatred toward the Jews as in the post that I cited here where the ancient hatred in propaganda against the Jews is allowed to be seen where it is posted as civil and will be good for this community s a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking. Now if readers see that a psychiatrist allows antisemitic propaganda to stand unsanctioned when they also see that he also states that being supportive takes precedence, then there could be a subset of readers that could think that anti-Semitism is supportive according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. This could lead IMHHHO to Jews becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence from readers here that take Mr. Hsiung at his word, that being supportive takes precedence and that Mr. Hsiung does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. So there could be Jew-haters that are gratified to see the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to stand and craw out of their holes to inflict harm against Jews.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 10:59:16
In reply to Lou's reply -heytpsuprtv » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 8:51:13
Lou,
Regarding:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> >
> > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> >
> > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html> The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
"Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
"Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 10:59:16
> Lou,
>
> Regarding:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
>
> > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
>
> > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > >
> > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > >
> > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
>
> Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
>
> "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
>
> "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
>
> Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 16:07:19
In reply to Lou's reply-asphlorisch » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
> > Lou,
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> >
> > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > >
> > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > >
> > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> >
> > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> >
> > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> >
> > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> >
> > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> LouScott,
There is a poster here that has posted what could be relevant to this discussion. The poster goes by the handle of "Bryte".
What Bryte posted was:
[...Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit (of) others...(and) 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...].
I think that Bryte has a rational basis to post that on the grounds that, at least, he/she may have seen that Mr. Hsiung attempts to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statements as to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted when they could be addressed with his tagline to please be civil or just deleted as alternatives. The attempt to justify the statement that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is by Mr. Hsiung saying something like that he did not want the poster to feel too bad if he was to post his tagline to please be civil to the statement. And in another attempted justification of anti-Semitic hate, he says that he is doing good for the community as a whole in his thinking by allowing hate so that there could be a discussion about it. The harm can continue when statements that can cause harm are allowed to be seen here as supportive, for support takes precedence. For one match could start a forest fire even if Mr. Hsiung has posted that he has taken back that he thought that.
The fire of hate spreads even if one thinks that it can't, for the historical record shows how one man's thinking can spread the fire of hatred toward the Jews that culminated in millions of Jews being murdered.
Never again.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:28:41
In reply to Lou's reply-asphlorisch » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
> > Lou,
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> >
> > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > >
> > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > >
> > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> >
> > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> >
> > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> >
> > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> >
> > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> LouI understand your concerns and the logic of your arguments.
Can you list here the actions that you would like Dr. Hsiung to perform in order to address these concerns?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:37:12
In reply to Lou's reply-Bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 16:07:19
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > >
> > > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > > >
> > > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> > >
> > > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> > >
> > > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> > >
> > > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> > >
> > > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> > What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> > When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> > Lou
>
> Scott,
> There is a poster here that has posted what could be relevant to this discussion. The poster goes by the handle of "Bryte".
> What Bryte posted was:
> [...Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit (of) others...(and) 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...].
> I think that Bryte has a rational basis to post that on the grounds that, at least, he/she may have seen that Mr. Hsiung attempts to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statements as to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted when they could be addressed with his tagline to please be civil or just deleted as alternatives. The attempt to justify the statement that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is by Mr. Hsiung saying something like that he did not want the poster to feel too bad if he was to post his tagline to please be civil to the statement. And in another attempted justification of anti-Semitic hate, he says that he is doing good for the community as a whole in his thinking by allowing hate so that there could be a discussion about it. The harm can continue when statements that can cause harm are allowed to be seen here as supportive, for support takes precedence. For one match could start a forest fire even if Mr. Hsiung has posted that he has taken back that he thought that.
> The fire of hate spreads even if one thinks that it can't, for the historical record shows how one man's thinking can spread the fire of hatred toward the Jews that culminated in millions of Jews being murdered.
> Never again.
> LouLots to think about.
- Scott
Posted by pontormo on September 11, 2014, at 22:04:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Bryte » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:37:12
What factors or events led to any particular occurence of genocide,--whether the genocide of the Mao's Cultural Revolution, of the Khmer Rouge, or in Bosnia, and Rwanda.
So I think it is hasty to claim that religious belief preclaimed on this website, or any other individual act that could be pointed to, could besymptomatic of or instrumental in cultivating, much less causing, the genocidal tendencies of our or any society.
I do also think, given the genocides that are known to have occurred in the 20th century since the holocaust, the phrase "never again" is not appropriate. It seems to suggest that only the Jewish genocide is of importance. Therefore I suggest it be dropped in favor of some other phrase that acknowledges that there have been repetitive outbreaks of genocidal violence, all during the 20th century and that, perhaps, this has occurred all through history. Perhaps a quest for some small beginning understand of genocides would be more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped in order somehow to prevent one.
Posted by bryte on September 11, 2014, at 23:46:23
In reply to Outbreaks of mass violence are not understood, posted by pontormo on September 11, 2014, at 22:04:52
> It seems to suggest that only the Jewish genocide is of importance.
Literally, it suggests only that the Jewish genocide is of importance. It is. Add whatever you want to that.
> Therefore I suggest it be dropped...
>Perhaps a quest for some small beginning understand of genocides would be more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped in order somehow to prevent one.
Your argument that "never again" should be "dropped" is that we should find something "more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped?"
Lou is forthright about his motivation, however misguided or ineffectual one might claim his reasoning to be.Whatever his motivation, the relevant topic is not Lou's motivation but the consistency with which a medical professional chooses to publicly label his guests' behaviors uncivil, knowing that to do so can embarrass people more so than simply removing from his Website content he finds to be inappropriate or which readers reasonably flag as inappropriate.
We do not need a final solution to mass outbreaks of violence to discuss the extent to which a medical professional should be consistent in whom he chooses to embarrass.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
In reply to Re: Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:28:41
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > >
> > > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > > >
> > > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> > >
> > > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> > >
> > > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> > >
> > > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> > >
> > > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> > What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> > When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> > Lou
>
> I understand your concerns and the logic of your arguments.
>
> Can you list here the actions that you would like Dr. Hsiung to perform in order to address these concerns?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You are interested in what I am asking Mr. Hsiung to do about that there are years of outstanding notifications from me that address the concerns that we are discussing here. He has the archives of the notifications and could act on those.
But I am not concerned that he has of yet acted on the years of outstanding requests from me. You see, the God that I give service and worship to, allows rulers to be, such as rulers of countries, or universities, or businesses or even internet communities like this one here. And this God says that He will punish those rulers that disregard justice. For this God says that it is the leader's responsibility to provide justice to protect the innocent.
But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted. If they want to turn a blind eye to my requests, and leave the hate to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by doing that, then the God that I give service and worship to could think that they are committing injustice toward the Jews. Then they will not deal with me, but with the God that dealt with all those that allowed hatred toward the Jews to be fostered in their community. And if they say in That Day that they were doing what would be good for the community as a whole by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive, it has been reveled to me that He will say to them, "Get away from me, you that work iniquity, for if you do injustice to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."
Lou
Posted by BrYTe on September 13, 2014, at 0:23:54
In reply to Lou's reply-theleast » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
> "Get away from me, you that work iniquity, for if you do injustice to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."
> Lou
>And the Hippocratic Oath ends with this self-imposed put-down:
"If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life."
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 0:29:02
In reply to Lou's reply-theleast » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
> I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
- Scott
Posted by pontormo on September 13, 2014, at 1:47:27
In reply to Lou's reply-theleast » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
> But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
>Sorry, I don't follow.
1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 10:43:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-theleast, posted by pontormo on September 13, 2014, at 1:47:27
>
> > But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't follow.
>
> 1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
>
> 2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
>
> Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
>
> 3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
>
> pontormo,
You asked,[...Who are "they" and who 'shall perish" unless "one repents"...].
The scriptures that the Jews use states that [...all we like sheep have gone astray...we have turned everyone to his own way...]. and those scriptures also state, [...Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon..].
It has been revealed to me that repentance is this "returning" to God. It involves going down a broken road to find a path that returns them to God. This repentance leads to a new heart, a new spirit, into a new realm. And as I try to explain this to my Christiandom friends, I tell them that this Jesus of Nazareth first said,[....Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...].
And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me, "The Lord is your Shepherd, He will restore your soul, He will lead you in the paths of righteousness out of the raging sea of dirt and mire to be led to the still waters of peace and joy, back to the green fields that you used to know."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 11:12:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-theleast » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 0:29:02
> > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
>
> If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
>
>
> - Scott
> Scott,
You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking for he states that he is doing what will be good for this community as a whole by leaving anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted. And worse, he states that readers are to try and trust him in that he is being fair by allowing the posts that develop hatred toward the Jews to stand unsanctioned. And even worse, he claims that the Golden Rule is somehow part of what he does. Any "Golden Rule" that says that hatred toward the Jews in posts here that are allowed to stand because they will be good for this community as a whole to be seen as supportive, is something that I am glad to have revealed to me from The God that I give service and worship to, to be a lie, for it contradicts the nature of this God's heart. It contradicts Mr. Hsiung's own rule. It contradicts the mission of this forum. It contradicts that support takes precedence. It is against the equality of man, which is IMHO against humanity itself.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 12:31:22
In reply to Lou's reply-krymehygenzhumnty » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 11:12:44
> > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
> > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
> >
> > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?> You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
>
> At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportiveI understand.
What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 12:53:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-krymehygenzhumnty » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 12:31:22
> > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
> > >
> > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
>
> > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> >
> > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
>
> I understand.
>
> What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned. He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules. He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are. This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted. Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements in question and citing the rule that is involved as a temporary means to stop other readers to think that they are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole because Mr. Hsiung thinks that, to remain unsanctioned where they are originally posted.
The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased. Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned because he says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. As to how anyone could evaluate as to if or if not it will be good for this community as a whole, one could look back to the historical record and see what happened to communities where anti-Semitic hate was state-sponsored on the basis that the leader allowed anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 20:16:50
In reply to Lou's reply-pstehtsponsoard » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 12:53:14
> > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
> > > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
> > > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?> > > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> > >
> > > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
> > I understand.
> >
> > What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?> It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned.
What are the reasons offered by Dr. Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being problematic?
> He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules.
Do you feel that these new moderation policies should be applied retroactively by editing the posting archives?
I don't see any forest fires. Do you? If there are no forest fires, perhaps the history of posts that concern you have not had the sociological consequences that worry you. Of course, it is conceivable that these posts have influenced people who read them, but who either never post or whose posts do not reveal such influences.
> He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are.
Interesting.
> This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
This is a very alarming statement. What do you think is the intent of Dr. Hsiung?
> Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements
I am undecided as to whether or not it makes sense to edit the archives or comment on the civility of posts residing in antiquity.
> The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased.
I do understand the point that you are making here. However, I don't agree with you that the posts you have historically cited as being capable of arousing antisemitism are themselves antisemitic.
> Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned
Wouldn't replying to a post using a subject line saying, "please be civil" serve as a sanction? Regardless, I am not in favor of combing through the archives for questionable verbiage.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 9:49:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstehtsponsoard » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 13, 2014, at 20:16:50
> > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> > > > > Would you like to see the posts that you see as being problematic deleted?
>
> > > > > If the deletion of these posts is not an option afforded you by Dr. Hsiung, what actions would you like him to perform?
>
> > > > You asked if I would like to see the post in question that degrade and debase Jews deleted.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, my answer is "no". This is because that the anti-Semitic thought in those posts spans many years that could have created and developed here, to a subset of readers, that anti-Semitism is supportive
>
> > > I understand.
> > >
> > > What, if anything, should Dr. Hsiung do in order to remediate or mitigate the development of antisemitism that you deem as being theoretically possible as a result of his not sanctioning the posts that concern you?
>
> > It is not as simple as deleting those posts. For Mr. Hsiung has posted what can be seen as an attempt to justify allowing those statements to remain unsanctioned.
>
> What are the reasons offered by Dr. Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being problematic?
>
> > He also takes back what he said that shows that a subset of readers could have been misled to believe that he understood that one match could start a forest fire and so he does not wait to sanction incivility and that if a statement was unsanctioned that it was not against his rules.
>
> Do you feel that these new moderation policies should be applied retroactively by editing the posting archives?
>
> I don't see any forest fires. Do you? If there are no forest fires, perhaps the history of posts that concern you have not had the sociological consequences that worry you. Of course, it is conceivable that these posts have influenced people who read them, but who either never post or whose posts do not reveal such influences.
>
> > He has also revised his FAQ recently secretly and will not post a disclosure to alert readers what these revisions are.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > This all goes to show his state of mind and to what his intent could be in allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted.
>
> This is a very alarming statement. What do you think is the intent of Dr. Hsiung?
>
> > Any solution to the allowing of the statements that defame Jews could be dealt with by posting his tagline to please be civil to those statements
>
> I am undecided as to whether or not it makes sense to edit the archives or comment on the civility of posts residing in antiquity.
>
> > The harm that could have come from those statements unsanctioned and continue to be able to cause harm, can not be erased.
>
> I do understand the point that you are making here. However, I don't agree with you that the posts you have historically cited as being capable of arousing antisemitism are themselves antisemitic.
>
> > Nor does posting his tagline to be civil annul the fact that readers could think that he is allowing anti-Semitic hate to remain unsanctioned
>
> Wouldn't replying to a post using a subject line saying, "please be civil" serve as a sanction? Regardless, I am not in favor of combing through the archives for questionable verbiage.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...What are the reasons offered by (Mr.) Hsiung as to why he will not sanction the statements you identify as being (anti-Semitic and defaming toward you, Lou)...].
The overriding reason that readers could think as to Mr. Hsiung allowing anti-Semitic statements and defamation against me to stand here where they are originally posted as to be seen as supportive and civil by the nature that he does not add his tagline to please be civil to those, is in his overriding TOS/FAQ here that states that he is doing what {in his thinking} will be good for this community as a whole and that he is using fairness and The Golden Rule in what he does.
That could influence and encourage and develop anti-Semitic hate here to be spread by the internet to users all over the world as the anti-Semitic statements could be considered by readers as civil and will be good on the basis that they are allowed to be seen unsanctioned, and that support takes precedence according to Mr. Hsiung so that readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive {in Mr. Hsiung's thinking}. That is a powerful influence to children that see a psychiatrist saying that he does what will be good for this community as a whole and allow anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive.
The use of his site to sanction statements that put him down while allowing statements that could put down Jews to be seen as supportive, could be considered by a subset of readers as being discriminatory and constitute an abuse of power. The tragic consequences that could be a result of a leader abusing power to allow antisemitic hate to be seen as supportive is in the historical record. The fire of hate can spread by the embers blowing in the wind to fall on the minds of young minds to induce hatred toward the Jews in their minds in the community that they reside. That could be in communities all over the world. It can be an influence that if left to burn, could result in the murder and suicide of innocent people. And as long as those hateful statements remain to be seen as supportive here, the fire of hate is still burning.
Mr. Hsiung's policy here that one match could start a forest fire so that he does not wait to sanction unsupportive statements was in place when these statements of hate were developed over the years. The fact that he now says that he does not hold to his own stated policy, does not annul the fact that one match could indeed start a forest fire and that statements of hatred toward the Jews being allowed to stand here can still stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews even if they are not on the front page, for readers can come to this site via a search that could land them on any page, not just the opening page. By him changing his mind, that does not change the reality of the horrible consequences that could happen to Jews throughout the world. For as the parent IMHHHO needs to be the exemplar to their children, IMHHHHHO so shall the leader of a community be the exemplar to the members. To be the exemplar to the members that anti-Semitism is supportive, is a perversion of The Golden Rule.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2014, at 9:59:12
In reply to Lou's reply-ehybuze » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 9:49:06
> > > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
Do these opportunities still exist?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 10:13:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-ehybuze » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 14, 2014, at 9:59:12
> > > > > > > > I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted.
>
> Do these opportunities still exist?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You asked if the opportunity for Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to address the anti-Semitism still exists.
There are years of outstanding notifications from me that went to all the deputies as well as Mr. Hsiung and he says that in his TOS that he is sure to get those. So any denying of that fact, could be considered by a subset of readers to be a lie. This brings up as to {what if} a deputy of record addressed the anti-Semitic hate and the defamation against me here that is standing unsanctioned now?
Now Mr. Hsiung states that any reply comes from {all of us} meaning him and all of his deputies. That could mean to a subset of readers that no reply at all from them, constitute evasion and deceit and a conspiracy to defame me and the Jews. Those readers could have a rational basis to think that on what the record here shows, as in the years of unanswered requests from me and the anti-Semitic statements and defamation against me here being allowed to stand by all of them. The question now is how can all of the defamation and hatred toward the Jews that could be seen as civil and supportive and that it will be good for this community as a whole {in Mr. Hsiung's thinking} for those statements to be allowed to stand, be attended to now.
I ask you.
Lou
Posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:48:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-greanpheeldz » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2014, at 10:43:41
> >
> > > But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I don't follow.
> >
> > 1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
> >
> > 2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
> >
> > Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
> >
> > 3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
> >
> > pontormo,
> You asked,[...Who are "they" and who 'shall perish" unless "one repents"...].
> The scriptures that the Jews use states that [...all we like sheep have gone astray...we have turned everyone to his own way...]. and those scriptures also state, [...Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon..].
> It has been revealed to me that repentance is this "returning" to God. It involves going down a broken road to find a path that returns them to God. This repentance leads to a new heart, a new spirit, into a new realm. And as I try to explain this to my Christiandom friends, I tell them that this Jesus of Nazareth first said,[....Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...].
> And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me, "The Lord is your Shepherd, He will restore your soul, He will lead you in the paths of righteousness out of the raging sea of dirt and mire to be led to the still waters of peace and joy, back to the green fields that you used to know."
> Lou
>
>
>
>>>Sorry, Lou. I still don't understand.
1 You don't say who "they" who "shall perish" are.
An answer to that question would define a category of persons who comprise "they." Is "they" posters on psychobabble? particular posters on psychobabble? I simply don't know what or who you mean.
2. Who is this "one" who must repent because the Wrath of this God is so great?
An answer would name this "one"-- I assume one person? you have in mind.
3. You also don't define what "perish" means. Usually "perish" means "die." But since everyone dies-- and here you say that if this "one" repents others won't "perish," you must mean something other than "die" in any literal sense.~~~
~~Could you please explain then what definition you give you "perish" in this sense?
~~~These are fairly simple, literal questions. I'm asking what and who you are referring to, and what would happen to them if they don't return to your (?) God.
Unless you can, readers like myself can only guess at who and what you are trying to say.~~~~Ie: How does what you write apply to anything on this website -- posters here, Bob, what will happen as a result of the Wrath of your God --
Can you explain that-- ie can you put that into simpler or more concrete terms?
for example, "green fields" do not mean anything to me. I have never been on green fields; therefore I cannot return to them. If you mean metaphoric "green fields" as some poetic idea of a happy place, I still don't know how that applies to psychobabble.
That's what I'm asking.
The information in your reply to me doesn't make this more clear.
thanks
Posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:52:55
In reply to Lou's reply-eyeaskyu » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 10:13:47
Lou, you have said that many posters here, including myself, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott are guilty of anti-semitism and/or defamation of you.
Are you then asking that all the many posts written by many posters, that you have said were anti-semitic and/or defamatory, should be sanctioned by Bob?
Also, have you added up the number of unresponded-to notifications? If so, how many are there, in your count?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2014, at 20:45:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-greanpheeldz, posted by pontormo on September 14, 2014, at 11:48:58
> > >
> > > > But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow.
> > >
> > > 1. Who are "they" who "shall perish" unless "one repents'?
> > >
> > > 2. And why should "they" perish just because "one" hasn't repented? If "they" repent isn't that enough as to "them'?
> > >
> > > Are you saying that Bob's repentance is the only one that matters here, and that on his repentence everyone else's fate depends?
> > >
> > > 3. And what exactly does "perish" mean? Could you elucidate?
> > >
> > > pontormo,
> > You asked,[...Who are "they" and who 'shall perish" unless "one repents"...].
> > The scriptures that the Jews use states that [...all we like sheep have gone astray...we have turned everyone to his own way...]. and those scriptures also state, [...Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon..].
> > It has been revealed to me that repentance is this "returning" to God. It involves going down a broken road to find a path that returns them to God. This repentance leads to a new heart, a new spirit, into a new realm. And as I try to explain this to my Christiandom friends, I tell them that this Jesus of Nazareth first said,[....Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...].
> > And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me, "The Lord is your Shepherd, He will restore your soul, He will lead you in the paths of righteousness out of the raging sea of dirt and mire to be led to the still waters of peace and joy, back to the green fields that you used to know."
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
>
> Sorry, Lou. I still don't understand.
>
> 1 You don't say who "they" who "shall perish" are.
>
> An answer to that question would define a category of persons who comprise "they." Is "they" posters on psychobabble? particular posters on psychobabble? I simply don't know what or who you mean.
>
> 2. Who is this "one" who must repent because the Wrath of this God is so great?
>
> An answer would name this "one"-- I assume one person? you have in mind.
>
> 3. You also don't define what "perish" means. Usually "perish" means "die." But since everyone dies-- and here you say that if this "one" repents others won't "perish," you must mean something other than "die" in any literal sense.~~~
>
> ~~Could you please explain then what definition you give you "perish" in this sense?
>
> ~~~These are fairly simple, literal questions. I'm asking what and who you are referring to, and what would happen to them if they don't return to your (?) God.
>
>
> Unless you can, readers like myself can only guess at who and what you are trying to say.
>
> ~~~~Ie: How does what you write apply to anything on this website -- posters here, Bob, what will happen as a result of the Wrath of your God --
>
> Can you explain that-- ie can you put that into simpler or more concrete terms?
>
> for example, "green fields" do not mean anything to me. I have never been on green fields; therefore I cannot return to them. If you mean metaphoric "green fields" as some poetic idea of a happy place, I still don't know how that applies to psychobabble.
>
> That's what I'm asking.
>
> The information in your reply to me doesn't make this more clear.
>
> thanks
> portormo,
You asked for me to explain the word "parish" as in what I wrote here.
It has been revealed to me that one could not die even though all die as you wrote. But one can overcome death and never die. Now when I use the word "one", I am referring to any and all humans, not the number one.
In my use of the word "parish", the verse cited was that unless one repents, they shall perish. This means that if one does repent, they will not perish, or die as you wrote. Those that repent can receive Eternal Life and never die, as it has been revealed to me.
And going back to that Road that I was writing about, the broken road, that is the road with heartaches and evilness that many take that goes away from God (readers be advised that the God in my writings is the God that the Jews give service and worship to). And on that road, they could turn back, back to God from where they once belonged. It is this turning back to God that I have been writing about here. For all we like sheep have gone astray as the scripture states, but there could be a calling from the Shepherd to turn around before it is too late. For the broken road leads to death.
And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, whose voice I heard, I turned and asked who he was and He said to me, "My sheep hear my voice. I am the Good Shepherd and I give them Eternal Life and they shall never perish."
Lou
>
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.