![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 18:44:13
In reply to Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 15:46:23
Friends,
Then the Nazi propaganda machine posted this so that childen could see it in a prominent place.
The inscription under the poster says;
[..remenber, when you see this that the Jews murdered Jesus...]
Lou
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/giftpilz/scan14.jpg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 18:51:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 18:44:13
Friends,
In the link here,you will get a large collection of antsemitic nazi thumb pictures of propaganda posters. The one poster in question is the 5th from the end and click on it to enlarge it.
Lou
[xxx]
Posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 19:02:22
In reply to Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 15:46:23
> Friends,
> What is discriminative membership? Well, this could go from denial of membership on the basis of religious or ethnic reasons in the TOS,(de jure), to a more complex denial system that does not use that direct exclusion, but has the same result,(de facto). In other words, if discriminative membership happens by the nature of the structure of the rules, then that is de facto, and if the rules just state that Jews can not be members, that is de jure.It is indeed important to keep a vigilant watch in order to prevent such discrimination from occurring. I am glad that there are people who are passionately dedicated to doing so.
It seems that Jews are allowed membership in Psycho-Babble - de facto.
To my untrained eye, I don't see any discrimination in the way Jews are treated on Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 19:03:49
In reply to Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 15:46:23
Friends,
Now at the start of the Third Riech, there was de facto that the Jews were being made to have less of a membership and antisemitic hate was sponsored by the goveernment. They posted that the Jews killed Christ. And you know what, Hitler and his constituency convinced an entire country that the Jews should be expelled and if they did not leave, exterminated.
They built this up over time, a little here, a little there. And did anyone speak up? Yes! and they were expelled or killed.
Now when Freud fled to England, his 4 sisters were not as lucky and were murdered by the Nazis.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:07:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 19:03:49
Friends,
The cental foundation of antisemitism is the doctrine that the Jews killed christ. For 2000 years, antisemites have justifed their murder of Jewish children by claiming that the Jews killed Chirst and that they accept the corporate responsibility for that and that their children also accept it.
No other statements in the Christiandom bible have cause das much murder to Jews as this one. Hitler used it and went to the plays at Easter time. It was his favorite,according to historians.
That doctrine has been posted here without sanction. It appears now as civil, for I have asked for it to be addressed and Dr. Hsiung is unwilling.
The poster offers a link and Dr,. Hsiung and Dinah have posted that you can not post a link that leads to what is uncivil, so this post is civil by it being left to stand. So I am showing you what is considered civil here.
The poster writes an offered link that leads to a christiandom bible chapter. When you start at the first verse, it reads;
1.When THE morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.
2.And when they had bound him, they led him away and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
.
.
.
15. Now at that feast the goovernor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16. And they had a notable prisoner called Barsbbas
17. Thearfore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them. Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas or Jesus which is called the christ?
18. For he knew that for envy they had delivered him
19. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent into him saying. Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because if him.
20. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus
21. The governor answered and said unto them,Whether of the twian will ye that I release unto you? They said,Barabbas.
22. Oilate said unto them,What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto himm. Let him be crucified.
23. And the governor said,Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out more, Let him be crucified.
24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washing his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blod of thi just person: see ye to it.
25. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
This is on the board now and I have asked evryone that could, to sanction the post and they are all unwilling.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 19, 2006, at 20:23:49
In reply to Lou's response to ... membership-corrected link, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 18:51:21
It's from l938!!!!!Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on August 19, 2006, at 20:28:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to ... membership-corrected link » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 19, 2006, at 20:23:49
Lou do not post to me thank-you very much. Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:34:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:07:38
Friends,
The next one is found on a blog that I am not the maker of. If you scroll down a little past half, you see,[..Is it civil to accuse someone of killing God?..]
The blog maker cites what was on the board and it is in data bases all ove r the world.
The statement was from an offerd link and led to
[..You must believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the son of god, and that he was slain by the Jews...]
I asked to sanction the post and Dr. Hsiung is unwilling.
There is more about this that will come later.
The blog is;
[xxx]
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 19, 2006, at 20:35:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:07:38
> The poster writes an offered link that leads to a christiandom bible chapter.
Although this might not be desirable, it appears to be an issue separate from discriminative membership.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:46:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:07:38
Friends,
The aspect of this forum is to be civil and for your protection. But in this post, it is allowed to stand and is considered civil, for I have requested that DR. Hsiung address it and he is unwilling.
So be it as it may be, I am left in a community where the following is considered to be civil.
[..One of the top 10 worst reasons for a religion is if it has its agenda not centered in Christ...]
Judaism is not a religion that has its agenda centered in Christ. The rules are that you can not post anything that puts down those of another faith, except Judaism and other faiths that are not having their agenda centerd in Christ?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:46:22
Friends,
In this one, the poster is called a Jewish b*tch,(and the poster does not use the star)
It is considered civil because not only did I request that it be samctioned, but a lady also requested the same and it stands unaddressed as civil.
You can do a search for these, but if you are finding difficulty, I have the originals in a catalog of posts.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by gardenergirl on August 19, 2006, at 21:05:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:52:40
Lou,
I think that it's possible that someone could interpret your posting messages about how Dr. Bob has not sanctioned posts you think should be sanctioned as another way of lodging a complaint about a post. I think that someone could interpret it that way whether you post a URL or not. Since questioning a post's civility is to be done via email now and not on the board, you might want to re-think your actions surrounding this issue.Just a thought.
Fellow Babbler gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 21:29:36
In reply to Friendly caution » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 19, 2006, at 21:05:45
gg,
The posts have already been determined to be civil. So I am not bringing the posts up for a determination, as tha has already been made.
I saw a post I think by Dinah that clarified tha you could even post links of a post as long as they were not posted for a determination. I think that is within this discussion now somewhere.
This thread is about how the rules aee that are different to me than to others, not to ask anyone if they are civil, for they have been deemed that already.
Now if the intention in making the rule was so that I could not show the members here how the rules have been allowed to be civil, while I will be expelled for making a mistake in counting, when these posts are allowed to stand without sanction as I would be, then are you saying that I will be expelled for showing that posts here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are allowed to be seen as civil?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2006, at 22:16:37
In reply to Re: Friendly caution » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 21:29:36
FWIW, I agree with gardenergirl's interpretation. I guess, since it's a new rule, it's up to Dr. Bob to decide.
Also, there is a rule prohibiting the links to sites containing material deemed uncivil on this site.
So please do not link to sites of Nazi propaganda against Jews.
Also, Dr. Bob has asked that the URL to that blogspot be exchanged by babblemail or email rather than posted directly on the board. (See Social Board archives from July for Dr. Bob's request.)
Some of these are difficult rulings best left to Dr. Bob. He may well decide to reverse or override my decision.
But in the meantime, please use hypotheticals, and be careful of the URL's you post.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 23:05:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:07:38
Friends,
I now have come to the realization that I will never have those statements that put down Jews to be sanctioned.
I now accept that I am in the wrong mental health community, for the new rules now are seen to possibly mean that I have to accept that statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are civil here.
Be it known here that I have been trying for years to have these type of statements sanctioned,so I do not think that they will ever be.
That means that I am in an unsound mental-health situation for me to be in, for I have to accept what puts me down and I will be expelled for showing that statements and quotes that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are considered to be civil here.
Let it be run by DR. Hsiung.It is his forum and I just happen to have thought that it was sponsored by the university of Chicago and would follow the guidlines of the university.
I think that there has been all I can do to try, as Scott wrote. I tried and I failed.
This might seem as a bad break for me, yet today, I consider myself, to be, the luckiest man, on the face of the earth.
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 20, 2006, at 0:15:50
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 20:46:22
> > [..One of the top 10 worst reasons for a religion is if it has its agenda not centered in Christ...]
>Lou, every time you repeat that portion of a post, you're repeating an idea I would think you'd want to have stamped out. Even if you're trying to show that this site is just horrible, and you've been treated terribly, and it's harmed your mental health -- you're still repeating a statement that many people besides yourself may find unpleasant or offensive.
And no matter whether you agree with the statement you're quoting or not, you could still be seen as sowing the seeds of anti-semitism yourself, by repeating it.
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:43:45
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2006, at 23:05:06
>I now have come to the realization that I will never have those statements that put down Jews to be sanctioned.
Dr Bob doesn't seem to interpret those statements as being statements that put down Jews. My guess would be that if he saw those statements as putting down Jews then he would indeed sanction them. He just doesn't see them as being statements that put down Jews.
You have posted other people the links.
Did they interpret them as statements that put down Jews? Sounds like there is (at least) one other and probably a lot more than one other Jew here. Did the others interpret those statements as being statements that put down Jews?
> Be it known here that I have been trying for years to have these type of statements sanctioned,so I do not think that they will ever be.
I think the dispute is over whether the instances you have cited are indeed instances of a type of statements that put down Jews. You think they are, others don't interpret them in that way.
> I have to accept what puts me down
I'm sorry that you felt those statements put you down.
> I will be expelled for showing that statements and quotes that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are considered to be civil here.
I'm not sure that that is it. I think it might be more about your insisting that those statements put down Jews when other people (including other Jews) don't interpret those statements in that way.
> I just happen to have thought that it was sponsored by the university of Chicago and would follow the guidlines of the university.
The cite isn't sponsored by U Chicago. There was a time that the cite did count as research but it hasn't counted as research for quite a while now. I think that Dr Bob AND the University wouldn't think that statements that put down Jews were acceptable. I also think, however, that the University would likely agree with Bob's determination that those statements aren't attempts to put down Jews.
If you felt put down by them you could have posted something to the poster like 'I interpreted your post in such a way that I thought you might have been trying to put me down for my faith'. Usually... People are fairly willing to say 'Oh, that wasn't what I intended I'm sorry if you felt upset'. I'm sorry things have gone badly for you there... I hope you stick around.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 7:35:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 20, 2006, at 0:15:50
Racer,
You wrote,[...you...sowing the seeds of antisemitism yourself.. (by showing what DR. Hsiung considers to be civil)]
Please do not write anything that has the potential for others to think that I am being accused of sowing the seeds of antisemitism because I am showing the world that Dr. Hsiung considers it to be civil for his members to post what puts down Jews and other faiths that have their agenda not centerd in Christ.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 7:55:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to discriminative membership » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 20, 2006, at 0:15:50
Racer,
As a Jew, my faith has an agenda that is not centered in Christ. Dr. Hsiung is unwilling to sanction a post that says that one of the top ten worst reasons for oa religion is if does not have its agenda centered in Christ.
I feel accused and put down when I read that. The rules for the forum are that you do not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. Yet today, this statement is in data bases all over the world showing it to go unsanctioned so that there is the potential for others to be led to think that Dr. Hsiung endorses the statement as civil to him.
Where on this earth is it civil to say that the Jew's religion is of the "worst"? And where in history was this carried out to murder Jewish children? Was it the crusades? Was it the inquisition? Was it the Nazi holocaust? Is it now gong on? And can this forum foster this defamation toward Jews and other faiths that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom?
How long wil it take and how many moere Jews will have to be murdered by those that say that the Jew's religion is in the catagory of the worst? 6,000,000? 10,000,000? Just me? Do you not see that by DR. Hsiung endorsing that defamation toward Jews that there is the potential for others to be led to think that he defames me because I am a Jew?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 8:08:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response » Lou Pilder, posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:43:45
Estella,
You wrote,[...Dr. Hsiung does not interpret that those statemnts put down Jews...if he did he would sanction them..]
Yes, and the whole world, including all the other mental-health forums that are following this, can now see by your own reasoning that because of his unwillingness to sanction posts that could have the potential to put down Jews, that that means to you that he considers them to be civil. But does it also say that his rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths has the exception that one can post what puts down Jews? The rule is to not post what could put down other faiths, and I feel put down when I read that my faith is in the top 10 worst reasons for it, because it is not centered in Christ. But I have to accept that here. I have to be considerd to have a faith that is in the worst kind. But i say to you, why would you want that (delete) here to be considered to be civil in a mental health community?
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 20, 2006, at 8:41:38
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 7:55:17
> Dr. Hsiung is unwilling to sanction a post...
Apparantly, this remains a fact despite many petitions made by a member poster.
> Yet today, this statement is in data bases all over the world...
As are the many petitions.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 9:11:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer, posted by SLS on August 20, 2006, at 8:41:38
Friends,
It is written that my petitions are in the same data bases as the posts here that Dr. Hsiung is unwilling to sanction that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.
And I ask you, could not those that read my petitions also wonder why others on the forum are not objecting to that Dr. Hsiung considers those statements to be civil, even other Jews?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 10:03:07
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2006, at 7:55:17
> Do you not see that by DR. Hsiung endorsing that defamation toward Jews that there is the potential for others to be led to think that he defames me because I am a Jew?
Please don't jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
It is fine to protest a board policy, but it is not allowed under site guidelines to accuse another, including Dr. Bob, of endorsing defamation toward Jews.
You've been warned to follow site guidelines before, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you from posting. I'll set the length at one week, and allow Dr. Bob to adjust it as necessary.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by cheesesteak on August 21, 2006, at 14:01:28
In reply to Blocked » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 10:03:07
Posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 14:00:44
In reply to Blocked » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 10:03:07
> I'll set the length at one week, and allow Dr. Bob to adjust it as necessary.
Even if you decided that a week was appropriate, I think that a post by you acknowledging and/or explaining that would be helpful.
Thanks,
gg
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.