![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 17:55:40
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 16:43:03
mair,
You have said that I am telling my experiance , again and again to convey the message that "his is the only road to personal salvation."
Mair, I am not telling my expriance to convey that the Road is the only road to personal salvation.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 17:59:37
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 16:43:03
mair,
You have written that my contribution is not valued.
I believe that all posts here are valued.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 24, 2002, at 18:00:09
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 16:43:03
> Bob
>
> Kiddo can certainly speak for herself, but what has me stymied, and maybe her too, is the perception that Lou is being allowed to strongly espouse his religious beliefs and she is not. You've drawn a distinction between her assertion of the "only road" and Lou's failure to make a similar assertion, but this seems like a distinction without a difference.Thank you mair, you spoke what I've been trying to say and so eloquently too. I still don't see the difference, however, it's unfortunate that the 'admin' doesn't see my side of it.
>
> Lou takes just about any posting opportunity he can to retell his experience in the context of whatever is being discussed. He may never say "and you should do this too or this is the only route to happiness or to personal salvation" but the message is so pervasive and repetitive and I really do think it's retold again and again precisely to convey the message that his is the only road to personal salvation without using those words.
>You're right, and perhaps that's where I've gone wrong. Instead of saying what the Bible says, I should have told of my experiences and perhaps that would have been more accepting. I won't speak of 'roads' anymore on this forum because it's become apparent to me that there are certain prejudices against me and my belief that won't be modified by anything I say or do. That isn't a sarcastic reply, just my own feelings/thoughts and (at this point anyway), haven't been censored as well...
> It also seems that some people feel that Lou is not being very supportive of them because they find the retelling of his experience to be so unresponsive to whatever posts preceded it. The retelling of his experience, with considerable embellishment of the factual context, can appear to be much more for his gratification than our support. This is a very difficult message to get across to him because you've so sharply circumscribed what can be said. If we can't say "please don't tell me again about the city of peace," how can we communicate that we find the persistent retelling of his story to be nonresponsive and unsupportive, and in that respect, rather annoying? I think that there have been enough swirling controversies over people trying to say just that to Lou, for him to fully understand that this particular kind of contribution is not valued. Yet his posts never really change. Why isn't that the same kind of baiting that you've cautioned other people for?
>I agree again. However, if the tables were turned, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd be receiving a PBS or PBC regarding the matter. I can probably answer that last question for you....it's because it's worded as his experience...and there is no 'right road' wrong road' comment to use against him. It's like I was censored for one thing, now I feel like I'm being censored for everything....again, that's just my take on things....
> I agree that this Board is not a great place to espouse any sort of belief as the be all and end all for everyone whether it be a particular medication (or no medication) or a particular therapy (or no therapy) or a particular religious belief. I hope that people can find a way on the faith board to moderate their statements so they can share their beliefs with others without it seeming that pressure is being applied or that someone of a different belief is being put down. I can't see how this is going to happen if all the rules are being drawn really just to address the issue of how to deal with one poster who's done very little to accommodate the wishes and sensibilities of anyone other than you.
>My answser is just not posting there anymore because it's obvious my opinions/thoughts aren't welcome there.
> I appreciate how difficult it is for you. You like to respond to specific posts. Lou may play within the technical parameters of your rules with each individual post but very much breach them in spirit through a whole range of posts and threads. I think that's why some people appreciated Iso's summary and why it might be tough for you to see the larger picture, and appreciate why there have been complaints that you are not moderating the Board in an even handed and nondiscriminating fashion.
>
> MairI think I'd better stop where I have...
Thanks again for your wonderful insight.
Kiddo
Posted by kiddo on July 24, 2002, at 20:09:52
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2002, at 15:04:28
> > > > > Maybe, but others might find it unsupportive.
> >
> > I find another persons belief unsupportive, but that hasn't deterred them any....
>
> What belief is that?
>
> > > No individual poster is under any obligation to be supportive to any other individual poster. There's a difference between not being supportive and being unsupportive.
> >
> > Define the difference for me please so that I may be able to understand this better and we may further discuss it.
>
> Putting someone down is being unsupportive. Not responding at all is not being supportive, but not being unsupportive, either.
How did I possibly put someone down by saying that my belief was one specific way? I consider putting someone down to be calling them names, degrading them, etc...>
> > > This isn't the place to look for support for potentially unsupportive beliefs. There are other forums that allow freer discussion of religious and other issues.
> >
> > I think I'm beginning to understand now. Only certain people and their *beliefs* are supported by you, and anyone/anything else is *unsupportive here.
>
> If you want to put it that way, yes, I only support the posting of certain types of beliefs.
>Crystal clear. So far that's the only one you've accepted.
> > I can't believe what I'm reading. You want me to go somewhere else? You want ME to leave, but not someone else??????????
>
> Did I say I wanted you to leave? I'd just like you to refrain from posting certain types of beliefs. But I understand that your beliefs are important to you, and it would be natural to want to have them supported. *If* it's important for you to be free to put down others and to have that supported, then for *that purpose* other forums are more appropriate.
>
> BobThat's how I took it, yes....yes, my beliefs are important to me. I can't believe this...you don't understand at all. It isn't important for me to "put others down", but it is important for me to be able to express myself as equally as anyone else.
Kiddo
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 21:32:12
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 16:43:03
mair,
You said that you can't say to me to please stop telling you again about the city of peace. And that you would like a way to tell me that it is nonresponsive, unsuppotive,and rather annoying.
Mair, I have just had a poster respond to me. He wanted to know if the pearl-white Mustang was the horse and the driver the Rider.
I also have had numerous questions , which are responses, that we are going over now.
Well, anythng can be annoying, but that doesn't mean that only posts that others find non-annoying can be posted.
You also say that my posts are non-supportive.
But you see, mair, I am only planting a seed. And there are those, perhaps, that the seed will grow in and they will be supported. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon. And, perhaps, there are those that will not water the seed and let it stay by the wayside and ignore it. And there maybe those that remember the seed and go back to find it later and have it grow even though they first thought that the seed was a delusion. But I have seen the great trees that have grown from the seed. I have seen the transformed lives of those that had gone astray and were brought back into the sheepfold.
I know that there are a lot of people that do not believe in the seed here. But it is the people here that are shakeled in their addictions and slaves to their depression that have a right to , at least, hear about the seed so that they can make their decision themselves to either walk away or allow the seed to grow. Let those that have an ear to hear, hear. Let those that want to come out of the darkness an into the marvelous light ,see. Let those that are thirsty drink from rivers of living water. Let those that are down hear the Rider that said," Humble yourself to the Lord and he will lift you up."
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2002, at 21:37:22
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 16:43:03
> I hope that people can find a way on the faith board to moderate their statements so they can share their beliefs with others without it seeming that pressure is being applied or that someone of a different belief is being put down. I can't see how this is going to happen if all the rules are being drawn really just to address the issue of how to deal with one poster who's done very little to accommodate the wishes and sensibilities of anyone other than you.
What makes you think these rules are just to address the issue of Lou?
Bob
Posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:05:36
In reply to Lou's response to mair's post-part 5, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 21:32:12
"But you see, mair, I am only planting a seed. And there are those, perhaps, that the seed will grow in and they will be supported. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon. And, perhaps, there are those that will not water the seed and let it stay by the wayside and ignore it. And there maybe those that remember the seed and go back to find it later and have it grow even though they first thought that the seed was a delusion. But I have seen the great trees that have grown from the seed. I have seen the transformed lives of those that had gone astray and were brought back into the sheepfold.
> I know that there are a lot of people that do not believe in the seed here. But it is the people here that are shakeled in their addictions and slaves to their depression that have a right to , at least, hear about the seed so that they can make their decision themselves to either walk away or allow the seed to grow. Let those that have an ear to hear, hear. Let those that want to come out of the darkness an into the marvelous light ,see. Let those that are thirsty drink from rivers of living water. Let those that are down hear the Rider that said," Humble yourself to the Lord and he will lift you up." "
Please explain to me why this is not an example of proselytizing, and if you agree that it is, why it's ok? Don't you think this supports the arguement that the retelling of Lou's experience is a form of proselytizing?Mair
Posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:13:02
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2002, at 21:37:22
" What makes you think these rules are just to address the issue of Lou?"
You make think all of the discussions since the origination of the faith board have broader applications and perhaps they do, but in my view they arose because of the unique problems which Lou poses for many posters. The guidelines might have had to have been thrashed out eventually, but it would have been in a different, and probably (albeit speculatively) less hostile climate.Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 22:13:52
In reply to Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:05:36
mair,
I do not believe that Dr.Bob's definition of proselytising is in breach here. The now definiion is not to try to get someone to join a particular religion, like the Jahovah's Witnesses, or let's say, the Methodists.
I was telling you that I would like for people to hear what I am saying, so that they can make their own choice as to whether to allow what I am saying to be fruitfull.
Now if Dr. Bob wants to expand his definitin ofproselytising to include what you are calling to his attention, then I will abide by that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2002, at 22:18:06
In reply to Re: more and more discriminating every day » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:13:02
mair,
Could you tell the unique problems that I pose to many posters?
I believe that this discussion could become fruitfull with your declaration of those problems , for then ,I feel, we can conclude this matter by all expressing our opionions concering what you see as "unique problems."
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by beardedlady on July 25, 2002, at 7:40:52
In reply to Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:05:36
I started a whole thread about this just before I "quit" the site. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6087.html I thought my arguments were good. I hope Dr. Bob thinks yours are better. Because the fact is that what Lou is doing is proselytizing, whether he invites you to drive on his one road or not.
In order to see it as anything other than proselytizing, one must believe that he, Lou, has experienced the things he says. Dr. Bob's belief that he has seems to be our obstacle.
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 8:25:06
In reply to Proselytizing » mair, posted by beardedlady on July 25, 2002, at 7:40:52
Beardedldy,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
I do understand your concern about proselytising. And I would also not want proselytising, for I do not want to belong to any religion. And I am not trying to get someone to join any religion.
I beleive that there is , however, proselytising on this board. It is the total thought that there is , possibly, a great benifit to be a person that uses psychotropic drugs to , perhaps, have their depression go away.. There are posters extolling their drugs. They tell of how they take them and how they help them with their afflictions. They defend taking them on the grounds, in some cases that I have read here, that it would be better for them to aquirer tardive dysconiesia, or to aquierer an addiction to the drug then to not take the drug. They talk about their theripists, psychiatrist, hospitals,and drugs all costing a huge amount of money. They go from one drug to another in a quest to find the "magic bullet" that will cause their depression to go away. Some do not have the huge amt. of money and time requiered for this journey into psychopharmacology. Yet it is allowed to be promulgated here with the exemption to the rules for proselytising. They that advocte the taking of psychotropic drugs, in my opinion, are proselytising the drug world.
Now I am not asking for any money, and it will not cause anyone to spend humongous amounts of money to travel the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life. They will be in no danger of contracting a movement disorder, or Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome and die. They will be in no danger to gain weight or sweat profusiously at night. They will be in no danger of instatnly dieing from a heart attack. They will be in no danger of kidney failure, liver failure, or a blood disease that kills you. They will not have memory loss , tinnitus or vision anomolys.
I went to a funeral yesterday. A friend of mines wife just died of a heart attack. She had gone into depression and was given an AD. He looked up the drug and found that it caused heart atacks in the people that took the drug before it was approved. He was familiar with my advocating the outlawing of these dugs. He said to me, "Lou. I am now gong to fight those drug companys that make these concotions of death till the day that I die. "
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:17:52
In reply to Proselytizing » mair, posted by beardedlady on July 25, 2002, at 7:40:52
Beardedlady,
You talked a lot, previously, about your experiance with your digestive problems here. You also talked about your experiance with being held up at gunpoint. In fact, you have been in the past a very prolific poster here.
Now I never objected to your posts because they were your experiances and I believe that this board is to tell of our experiances. And I believe that all of the posts here have value. Whether they are your posts, my posts, Kiddo's posts, mair's posts. Dr. Bob's posts, Cam W's posts, IsoM's posts, Fruitcake Freddie' posts and any other posts here.
I have never advocated that anyone's post here be censored except the one's that defame people like one of your posts with CamW and Kid_A that demened Islamic people. In fact, on that post, there was the advocating of genocide.
I also objected to the posting of anti-Semitic web sites. The posters defended the posting of the anti-Semitic web site on the flimsiest grounds that since the site ridiculed jews, then it was funny and thearfore it could be posted , for as they said, they have the right to laugh.
I am only asking for equal treatment, not special treatment. I disagree with Dr. Bob on his rules here, but I respect admin. rules and I believe that if one can not abide by the rules of the admin. or that they think that the admin. rules, let's say for proselytising, are too much for them to accept, that they have the choice to find another board as Dr. Bob says. And he is correct in that respect.
Lou
Posted by Lini on July 25, 2002, at 9:24:20
In reply to Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by mair on July 24, 2002, at 22:05:36
I usually stay out of "Lou" discussions, but the post that Mair is referring to is proseltizing pure and simple.>I know that there are a lot of people that do >not believe in the seed here. But it is the >people here that are shakeled in their >addictions and slaves to their depression that >have a right to , at least, hear about the seed >so that they can make their decision themselves >to either walk away or allow the seed to grow.
This sentence implies that the "seed" is the only way. And I don't like people telling me that Jesus is the only way any more than a particular seed.
(I start tripping over things in these discussions cause some of what I type trying to explain myself sounds so ridiculous, but hopefully my explanations are clear)
And Lou, when you're not talking about seeds or roads or crowns or horses, I find you posts to be very valuable.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:36:17
In reply to Re: Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by Lini on July 25, 2002, at 9:24:20
Lini,
The overiding issue about proselytising, as it is defined on this board, is "does the poster advocate joining a particular religion such as, let's say, catholicsism or Islam?"
Now at appears to me that there are posters that want that definition expanded to include "The Road". Now I will abide by any admin. rules here, if they are expanded.
But if the Road is made to be excluded here, then so would the faith board in toto, in my opinion, for any mention of faith would be excluded or it could be deemed "proselytising".
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:52:37
In reply to Re: Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by Lini on July 25, 2002, at 9:24:20
Lini,
I do not believe that the post in question here is saying that the seed is the "only way".
Now I am telling of my experiance because I have seen the results change the lives of people. I am not asking anyone to join a religion or send me money or advocate the Salvation Army or any other group, not that any groups are bad mind you.
Now if what I am telling could be of value to some, then I am asking to be allowed to finish the Road on the grounds that there may be someone that overcomes their depression and/or addiction as a result of it. So I am asking for the posters that want my experiance to be deemed "proselytising", which would end it, to allow me to finish the Road .
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 9:58:34
In reply to Lu's response eardedlay's post- part 2, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:17:52
"The posters defended the posting of the anti-Semitic web site on the flimsiest grounds that since the site ridiculed jews, then it was funny and thearfore it could be posted , for as they said, they have the right to laugh."
Lou, please stop making assumptions about people being anti-semitic. I was a poster who defended Kid_A and did not say anything of this kind. Nor did anyone else for that matter.
This is extremely offensive to me.
- KK
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:01:12
In reply to Re: Proselytizing Dr. Bob??, posted by Lini on July 25, 2002, at 9:24:20
Lini,
There are people here that are, indeed , shakled to their addictions and slsves to their depression. Their psychiatrists have failed them, for their suffering continues right now, their drugs have failed them, for their suffering continues right now, their thrapists have failed them, for their suffering continues right now and , perhaps, since all those things have failed them, then it is those that I am advocating to go on the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life. The Road is a last resort. That is why it is not proselytising. The road is only for those tht are suffering and I made that clear at te beginning by telling about the Pearl.
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 10:02:57
In reply to Lou's response to Lini's post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:36:17
Please note that it does not Have to include "faith":
'to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause'
Thank you.
- KK
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:17:38
In reply to Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post » Lou Pilder, posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 9:58:34
Krazy Kat,
Below is on e of the posts from that thread of yours.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020517/msgs/24271.html
Lou
Posted by mair on July 25, 2002, at 10:32:57
In reply to Lou's response to Lini's post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 9:36:17
" The overiding issue about proselytising, as it is defined on this board, is "does the poster advocate joining a particular religion such as, let's say, catholicsism or Islam?" "
Bob
Are you aware of having said anything which would support this most narrow definition of proselytizing? Is Lou off the hook the the rest of us would be on just because he doesn't associate his religious beliefs with a specific religion or denomination?
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:50:37
In reply to Definition of Proselytizing Dr. Bob, posted by mair on July 25, 2002, at 10:32:57
mair,
Yuou have aske Dr. Bob if... Lou is off the hook...
Now others here can talk of their experiances and they are not being told to stop.
The issue is trying to get people to join a particular religion, such as Zen or , let's say, the Morman Church.
I do not see anyone here "on the hook" here. Dr. Bob's rule abot wht constitutes proselytising is grossly well-defined for it is simple.
Now the experiance that I am telling here does not requierer anyone to associate themselves with a particular religion. In fact, I have stated that even athiests can travel the Road and that the Gates will open to anyone, not just members of a particular religion. When I was in the City of Peace, the Rider said to me, "He who comes to me, I will in no way cast out."
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 11:49:17
In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post » Lou Pilder » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:17:38
> Krazy Kat,
> Below is on e of the posts from that thread of yours.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020517/msgs/24271.html
> LouNo, Lou, that is a link to one of YOUR posts. It says:
"Krazy Kat,
I have read your post that you say that Kid_A is "so funny' in regards to his posting of a link to an anti-Semitic web site.
Could you explain why you think that it is "so funny"? It is not funny to me that the link portrys jews as "crucifiers of christ". That phrase has been used for 2000 years to foster hatred toward the jews. "All I said was "Man, Kid, you are so funny". There was much more to that site than anything "anti-semitic", and I did not see the anti-semitic comments when I went there, WHICH I pointed out later.
Are you calling me an anti-semite or suggesting that I laugh at things which are anti-semitic? Your comment suggests that to me... please respond quickly, for I feel much aligned and I am going to ask Dr. Bob to please step in, because to me, that is an offensive and dangerous assumption. It's like accusing someone of murder, when they have not committed a crime.
Posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 11:52:13
In reply to Re: Definition of Proselytizing Dr. Bob » mair, posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 10:50:37
It is not limited to "religion" as my definition above points out...
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2002, at 13:06:51
In reply to Re: Kid_A's 'anti-semitic' post » Lou Pilder » krazy kat » Lou Pilder, posted by krazy kat on July 25, 2002, at 11:49:17
KK,
When you clicked on the link, the opening page of the anti-Semitic web site came up. It was plainly visable, with the castagation of jews prominatly depicted with dollar signs replacing the S in words. So, a word like, let's say, pass, became pa$$. And so forth. Then, reading the message in the site depicted a clear form of anti-Semitic hatred by the sites owner.
Reading further in the site revealed even a more insidious diatribe of hate includig the phrase that the jews were the crucifirers of christ. Dr. Bob told all never to post a link to an anti-Semitic site again and that sarcasm is not excuse for posting it. For someone to say that they did not see the anti-Semitism on the opening page , then beggs the question of then how did they deciede that it was so funny?
Now I am not afraid of you asking Dr. Bob to step in, for he has already flagged the post and admonishd those for their particiption in the thread that he said that sarcasm was not an excuse and to never post that type of post again.
You are attempting to distnguish a difference between being an anti-Semite and laughing at things that are anti-Semiic. That statement of yours, then to me, indicates that you did see the anti-Semitic rhetoric on the post, for you now are saying hat laughing at it is different than being one.
Now if someone laughed at seeing the horrors of nazism depicted by piles of corpses in a death camp, then I would not see any difference between laughing at it and endorsing the act. However, you may not see it that way, but that does not mean that I have to see it your way.
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.