![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2008, at 15:51:18
In reply to Criteria? » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 5, 2008, at 14:06:11
> When there were more people here it made sense to banish a few now and then to keep the rest in line.
>
> Now that there are so few left we are being encouraged to resolve our differences without intervention.
>
> It's nice to see that people are valued.
>
Sigismund,
You wrote,[...banish makes sense with a lot of members..now with fewer members..without intervention...people are valued...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to purport here by what you posted. This is because I am not in the understsnding that there has been a new polcy here concerning blocking and then if there was some change here about that, what you are wanting to mean by people {valued} in relation to that. If you could clarify this with more infomation, then I could have a better idea of what you are wanting to mean and if there was a new policy here made or not.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on April 5, 2008, at 16:13:09
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-nough? » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2008, at 15:51:18
I was thinking of Bob's response to Happyflower.....
> I think almost everytime I was blocked it was because I [responded to feeling hurt] by someone or something to begin with. ... Hurt goes both ways. I have been told I hurt someone bad, but so was I. I don't go around hurting people without some action that provoked it. I have to learn not to let myself be provoked so much.
Those cycles of hurt can be really destructive. And hard to break!
> one thing I have learned from [Dinah] is forgiveness and understanding.
The deputies and I can as a last resort block people, but I'd much prefer to see posters help each other to break those cycles. Or, even better, to be forgiving and understanding and to break them themselves.
Like you did with your corrections, thanks.
Bob
..........Especially the second part.
Posted by Sigismund on April 5, 2008, at 16:20:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-nough? » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 5, 2008, at 16:13:09
That only has relevance to cycles of personal antagonism.
There have been blocks (or cautions) for generalizing, exagerrating and stating opinions that might make a supporter of a differing opinion feel put down in the opinion of Dr Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2008, at 22:57:35
In reply to That should have read, posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2008, at 20:03:06
> Conflicts that might arise between viewpoints that are inconsistent with each other should be treated differently to conflicts between people, where there is a real chance of people being hurt.
It might help to be able to make a distinction like that. But don't conflicts between viewpoints also sometimes lead to conflicts between the people who hold them?
Bob
Posted by Sigismund on April 7, 2008, at 2:58:13
In reply to Re: Conflicts, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2008, at 22:57:35
>But don't conflicts between viewpoints also sometimes lead to conflicts between the people who hold them?
Yes.
I have been meaning to go back in the archives and look at people's posts around 9/11 and the second Bush election, just to see.
But people who have strongly differing opinions do not neccessarily hurt each other badly.
IMO, the kinds of differences (and hurt) that happen on Faith and Politics are buffered by the awareness that different viewpoints preclude each other's validity.
I think what really hurts people is being excluded, shunned or made(?) to feel put down.
There are people I have spoken to civilly on Faith and Politics whom I never expected to agree with, but that was factored in.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2008, at 6:59:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-psyeareiuz, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2008, at 10:55:47
> > > > > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
> > > >
> > > > It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
> > > >
> > > > > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
> > > >
> > > > No, of course not.
> > > >
> > > > > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You wrote,[...I can get busy...don't have a staff...I can't respond to all posts...do..continue to add...].
> > > From what you wrote above here, and since you do respond to posts, then I ask as to what is the criteria, if any, that you use to determine as to which posts that you will respond to and which posts that you will not respond to? If I and the other members here could know of your criteria used for that, then I and others could have the opportunity to use those criteria for to have either an expectation for a reply from you or not.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In regards to if you are intending to reply to me here concerning your statement and my reply to you here about what your criteria are, if any, for responding to other's requests to you or not, I would like for you to consider in any reply to me here in this thread the following of a concern of mine that I do not see a reply from you to me here that identifies what posts could or could not be good for the community as a whole about my concerns in relation to requesting clarification and guidance concerning site rules.
> > My concern was and still is as to what you are wanting to mean by your TOS that writes to trust you and that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. This was my concern on June 22, 2007 where I was asking for you in relation to actions that you have taken and for you to post your rationale that I had asked you for in relation for you to post examples of posts that could or could not be good for the community as a whole in relation to seeking clarification and guidance concerning site rules here.
> > You wrote on June 22, 2007,
> > [...My suggestion is oriented to those administrative posts that seek clarification and guidance regarding site rules. Perhaps before we post them (the requests) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for the community as a whole?...]This was a reply by you to a member about members posting requests to you and I am a member that has requested many clarifications concerning site rules here.(citation uhnwlg 16)
> > If I or anyone else here is to ask themselves as to if what they are requesting clarification and guidance for will or will not be good for the community as a whole, I think that since your TOS also writes that if one would want to know your rationale to just ask and that also your TOS says that the administrative board is for discussion about the administration of the forum and it is fine to discuss actions that you take, rules, policy and such and to remind you of outstanding requests.
> > This concern of mine here is of significant importance to me because I have many requests to you here for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and I would like to know and would like the forum members to also know, if my requests to you for clarification are or or not good for the community as a whole according to any rationale that you may have for making that determination. Also, others could also know your criteria for such for them to post what could or could not be good for the community as a whole according to yout thinking. So if you are going to post your criteria for responding to member's requests to you here, I would like for you to include this in any reply to me here. (citation uhnwlg 17)
> > Lou Pilder
> > citation uhnwlg 16
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
> > citation uhnwlg 17
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070702/msgs/773879.html
> >
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> There is to me a serious nature in this that I am very concerned about. You write that you can not respond to all posts to you, but you do respond to posts here. I am unsure as to what criteria you have, if any, that you use for responding to member's requests here.
> The seriousness to me in this situation is that there is the potential, IMO, because you post concerning that there could be requests for clarification and guidance to you that could either be good for the community as a whole or not and that you write that members could ask themselves that before posting their request for claification. This is of great importance to me for you to identify, by using some type of example as to what a request could be that could be good for the community as a whole, and one that could not be good for the community as a whole, as examples for others to use to make their own determination as to if my requests are or are not good for the community as a whole according to your thinking here.
> You see, since you have posted concerning posts requesting clarification and guidance that others IMO could think that some could be of the nature that the requests could not be good for the community as a whole, then I feel that there is the potential for me to be stigmatized here as a member that requests clarification and guidance concerning site rules that could not be considered by you to be good for the community as a whole untill you post your examples that I have requested that could distinguish between requests for clarification or guidance that are or are not good for the community as a whole.
> I can not think of a request for clarification or guidance to you about site rules that could not be good for the community as a whole and if there is one I am asking for you to post here such an example to compare my requests to your example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole. But you have rasied IMO the spector that there could be requests to you for clarification and guidance that could not be good for the community as a whole and I would like to clear this up, for if there is the potential IMO for me to be stigmatized, then there is also the potential IMO for me to be used as a scapegoat here and I would like this cleared up.
> Lou Pilder
> here is a link to the correction to the link in the preceding post.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/773879.htmlMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your TOS here that you take responsibility for what you post here,(citation dfm7), this is my reminder in accordance with your reminder procedure , the above concerns of mine.
Now I have more concerns because you have posted to others here and not to my concerns in the above posts which leads me to have a want to know what your rationale could be for posting to others but not to me in relation to my concerns from what you have posted that could IMO have the potential to lead some others to think that what you posted here is about my posting requests for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and such.
When I read what you have posted here, and you write in your TOS tha you take responsibility for what you post, I feel that IMO others could have the potential to put me in a light of someone that posts requests to you that could have the potential to be not good for the community as a whole and I would like for you to post as to if you are wanting to mean that any of my requests to you for guidance and clarification about site rules are in your thinking not good for the community as a whole, and why you think that, so that I could respond to whatever you post here about me concerning my requests to you for clarification and guidance about site rules.
There is a principle called {false light}. Are you aware of that principle? I do not want to be cast in a false light here and in my opinion there is the potential for that to happen to me here untill my concerns in the above posts to you are cleared up in relation to your TOS that you welcome feedback and it is fine to discuss actions that you take and to ask for your rationale and to discuss rules and post reminders for such requests outstanding.
Lou Pilder (citation defm7)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#mission
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2008, at 16:39:18
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2008, at 9:56:17
> > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
>
> It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
>
> > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Lou, I welcome feedback, but...I can't...].
I am unsure as to your TOS here that writes that you are welcomming feedback and that you do what is in your thinking what will be good for the community as a whole and that members trust you in that.
This has to me a want for clarification here because your TOS also states that you take responsibility for what you post here.
There is what you have posted that I am requesating to have dialog with you about and there is a principle called {good faith} that I undertsnad to be an accepted practice when someone writes that they take responsibility for what they post.
I am reminding you in good faith to post here concerning my requests to you as to what you have posted here that IMO could have the potential for some others to think that what you posted is about me. Could you reply to me concerning as to that that you posted as per the principle of good faith which IMO means that since you write that you take responsibility for what you post, then IMO since I want to respond to any reply to me, I would like for the reply to be timely, for each day with out a reply means to me that more people could make conclusions about as to if what you wrote in question is about me or not and I would like that clear that up? If so, then I could have the opportunity to know if my requests are considered by you to be about me and respond so that if there is any specter that could have the potential to cast me in a false lite, I could respond to what you posted here.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 19:48:34
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-spctr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2008, at 16:39:18
Lou
If I was Jewish this....
>For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17)
would have the potential to make me feel hurt.
(John 18:28 to 19:16 as well.)
It is only in recent times (last 100 years) that antisemitism has not had Christianity as its principal inspiration.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2008, at 3:11:09
In reply to Re: Conflicts » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on April 7, 2008, at 2:58:13
> people who have strongly differing opinions do not neccessarily hurt each other badly.
>
> IMO, the kinds of differences (and hurt) that happen on Faith and Politics are buffered by the awareness that different viewpoints preclude each other's validity.
>
> I think what really hurts people is being excluded, shunned or made(?) to feel put down.I think viewpoints that preclude each other's validity can be problematic here. Since if the validity of someone's viewpoint is precluded, they may feel excluded, shunned, or put down.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2008, at 6:17:38
In reply to Lou's reminder to Robert Hsiung-falslit, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2008, at 6:59:45
> > > > > > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
> > > > >
> > > > > > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, of course not.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > You wrote,[...I can get busy...don't have a staff...I can't respond to all posts...do..continue to add...].
> > > > From what you wrote above here, and since you do respond to posts, then I ask as to what is the criteria, if any, that you use to determine as to which posts that you will respond to and which posts that you will not respond to? If I and the other members here could know of your criteria used for that, then I and others could have the opportunity to use those criteria for to have either an expectation for a reply from you or not.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In regards to if you are intending to reply to me here concerning your statement and my reply to you here about what your criteria are, if any, for responding to other's requests to you or not, I would like for you to consider in any reply to me here in this thread the following of a concern of mine that I do not see a reply from you to me here that identifies what posts could or could not be good for the community as a whole about my concerns in relation to requesting clarification and guidance concerning site rules.
> > > My concern was and still is as to what you are wanting to mean by your TOS that writes to trust you and that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. This was my concern on June 22, 2007 where I was asking for you in relation to actions that you have taken and for you to post your rationale that I had asked you for in relation for you to post examples of posts that could or could not be good for the community as a whole in relation to seeking clarification and guidance concerning site rules here.
> > > You wrote on June 22, 2007,
> > > [...My suggestion is oriented to those administrative posts that seek clarification and guidance regarding site rules. Perhaps before we post them (the requests) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for the community as a whole?...]This was a reply by you to a member about members posting requests to you and I am a member that has requested many clarifications concerning site rules here.(citation uhnwlg 16)
> > > If I or anyone else here is to ask themselves as to if what they are requesting clarification and guidance for will or will not be good for the community as a whole, I think that since your TOS also writes that if one would want to know your rationale to just ask and that also your TOS says that the administrative board is for discussion about the administration of the forum and it is fine to discuss actions that you take, rules, policy and such and to remind you of outstanding requests.
> > > This concern of mine here is of significant importance to me because I have many requests to you here for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and I would like to know and would like the forum members to also know, if my requests to you for clarification are or or not good for the community as a whole according to any rationale that you may have for making that determination. Also, others could also know your criteria for such for them to post what could or could not be good for the community as a whole according to yout thinking. So if you are going to post your criteria for responding to member's requests to you here, I would like for you to include this in any reply to me here. (citation uhnwlg 17)
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > citation uhnwlg 16
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
> > > citation uhnwlg 17
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070702/msgs/773879.html
> > >
> > >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > There is to me a serious nature in this that I am very concerned about. You write that you can not respond to all posts to you, but you do respond to posts here. I am unsure as to what criteria you have, if any, that you use for responding to member's requests here.
> > The seriousness to me in this situation is that there is the potential, IMO, because you post concerning that there could be requests for clarification and guidance to you that could either be good for the community as a whole or not and that you write that members could ask themselves that before posting their request for claification. This is of great importance to me for you to identify, by using some type of example as to what a request could be that could be good for the community as a whole, and one that could not be good for the community as a whole, as examples for others to use to make their own determination as to if my requests are or are not good for the community as a whole according to your thinking here.
> > You see, since you have posted concerning posts requesting clarification and guidance that others IMO could think that some could be of the nature that the requests could not be good for the community as a whole, then I feel that there is the potential for me to be stigmatized here as a member that requests clarification and guidance concerning site rules that could not be considered by you to be good for the community as a whole untill you post your examples that I have requested that could distinguish between requests for clarification or guidance that are or are not good for the community as a whole.
> > I can not think of a request for clarification or guidance to you about site rules that could not be good for the community as a whole and if there is one I am asking for you to post here such an example to compare my requests to your example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole. But you have rasied IMO the spector that there could be requests to you for clarification and guidance that could not be good for the community as a whole and I would like to clear this up, for if there is the potential IMO for me to be stigmatized, then there is also the potential IMO for me to be used as a scapegoat here and I would like this cleared up.
> > Lou Pilder
> > here is a link to the correction to the link in the preceding post.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/773879.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your TOS here that you take responsibility for what you post here,(citation dfm7), this is my reminder in accordance with your reminder procedure , the above concerns of mine.
> Now I have more concerns because you have posted to others here and not to my concerns in the above posts which leads me to have a want to know what your rationale could be for posting to others but not to me in relation to my concerns from what you have posted that could IMO have the potential to lead some others to think that what you posted here is about my posting requests for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and such.
> When I read what you have posted here, and you write in your TOS tha you take responsibility for what you post, I feel that IMO others could have the potential to put me in a light of someone that posts requests to you that could have the potential to be not good for the community as a whole and I would like for you to post as to if you are wanting to mean that any of my requests to you for guidance and clarification about site rules are in your thinking not good for the community as a whole, and why you think that, so that I could respond to whatever you post here about me concerning my requests to you for clarification and guidance about site rules.
> There is a principle called {false light}. Are you aware of that principle? I do not want to be cast in a false light here and in my opinion there is the potential for that to happen to me here untill my concerns in the above posts to you are cleared up in relation to your TOS that you welcome feedback and it is fine to discuss actions that you take and to ask for your rationale and to discuss rules and post reminders for such requests outstanding.
> Lou Pilder (citation defm7)
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#missionMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your procedure here to keep reminding you of outstanding requests, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 24, 2008, at 8:57:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2008, at 9:56:17
> > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
>
> It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
>
> > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
>
> BobRobert,
You wrote,[...I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes. and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I am afraid that I can not respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here...].
I do understand. I understand that the TOS here is that you write that you take responsibility for what you write here. I do understand that you write here that if one wants to know your rationale to please just ask you. I understand that you write that this administration board is for discussion of the policy, rules, actions that you take and such. I understand that you write that one is to remind you of outstanding requests. I understand that you write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole . I understand that you write that others to trust you in what you do here. I understand that you write that it is your policy to want to be fair. I undertstand what you have written here. You have written,[...I can get busy {sometimes}...]. Then you could also not be busy sometimes?. You wrote,[...I don't have a staff to respond for me...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by that because I am asking you about what you wrote as per your writing here that you take responsibility for what you write here, and I am unsure as to if a staff is needed to reply to me for what you have written as that you have replied to others here even for what you have not written here and I am having an expection as per your policy of being {fair} to receive a reply from you.
If you could clarify this for me then I could know if, or if not, what you have written here is any attempt to give any appearance that could have the potential IMO of others thinking as to what you have wriiten is to justify or not or establish a foundation or not, to not reply to me concerning what your TOS writes as per that you welcome feedback and such. I do not see any foundation in what you wrote in question here to justify not answering my concerns to you and if you are wanting to mean from your statement here in question that you are not going to write an answer to me that answers my concerns with your giving me your rationales, and criteria requested and such, then if that is what you are wanting to mean could you confirm that or not? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Sigismund on May 4, 2008, at 19:17:21
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-takrespon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 24, 2008, at 8:57:40
Hi Lou
I can understand that Bob might feel he needs a staff with stuff like this.
I feel like I need some Dexedrine and morphine just to get to the bottom of the page.
But anyway....As I understand it, all this is about the fact the it very well might be considered uncivil for you to post that the rider said to you
'have no other Gods before me'. (Now I've said it).
But this is the first commandment, or similar to it.So is it a question for you of not only justice being done but being seen to be done?
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2008, at 11:34:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-takrespon » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 4, 2008, at 19:17:21
> Hi Lou
> I can understand that Bob might feel he needs a staff with stuff like this.
> I feel like I need some Dexedrine and morphine just to get to the bottom of the page.
> But anyway....
>
> As I understand it, all this is about the fact the it very well might be considered uncivil for you to post that the rider said to you
> 'have no other Gods before me'. (Now I've said it).
> But this is the first commandment, or similar to it.
>
> So is it a question for you of not only justice being done but being seen to be done?Sigismund,
You have brought some issues into focus here. I am asking that if anyone is considering to be a discussant in this thread that they read in the link offered here (citation tustn) about the fallacy of {appeal to probability} and aquaint yourself with the aspects of it in posting your response here. In particular, but not limited to, the aspect of {standard} along with it. If you could do that, then I think that that could enhance the discussion and could bring out another aspect of this discussion with that established here.
Lou
citation tustn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
Posted by Sigismund on May 14, 2008, at 21:29:38
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-tustn » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 8, 2008, at 11:34:29
The probability thing?
That's like the argument about torture isn't it?
If even one terrorist event can be prevented by torture then torture is worthwhile?
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2008, at 6:46:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-tustn » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 14, 2008, at 21:29:38
> The probability thing?
>
> That's like the argument about torture isn't it?
>
> If even one terrorist event can be prevented by torture then torture is worthwhile?Sigismund and others,
In this discussion, I would like for the discussants to be aquainted with several fallacies (citation wikiwish) so that if they arrise in the discussion, one could be aware of them. I like the wikipedia for their presntation of the fallacies for they cite other related fallacies and one could use words from their presentation to do searches on one's own.
Lou
citation wikiwish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2008, at 6:55:06
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-wshfulthnkng » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2008, at 6:46:39
> > The probability thing?
> >
> > That's like the argument about torture isn't it?
> >
> > If even one terrorist event can be prevented by torture then torture is worthwhile?
>
> Sigismund and others,
> In this discussion, I would like for the discussants to be aquainted with several fallacies (citation wikiwish) so that if they arrise in the discussion, one could be aware of them. I like the wikipedia for their presntation of the fallacies for they cite other related fallacies and one could use words from their presentation to do searches on one's own.
> Lou
> citation wikiwish
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinkingFriends,
Another fallacy that I would like for those considering to be discussants here, is the fallacy of cognitive bias, so if that fallacy is used, one could recognize it as such. (citation wikicogbi}
Lou
(citation wikicogbi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Posted by Dena on June 10, 2008, at 2:12:31
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-cogbi, posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2008, at 6:55:06
I'm having a hard time understanding the nature and purpose of the Faith forum, altogether.
When I first came here, back about 7 years ago now (thereabouts), I was quite into institutional Christianity, and I couldn't manage to NOT foist my views "as fact" upon others -- and managed to get blocked over and over and over ... I belive my last blocking period was 64 weeks -- which is over a year. Whew! I shall squelch my perverse sense of pride over such an accomplishment! ;)
In all seriousness, my beliefs have morphed over the years, particularly once I left the institutions, and I've come to believe that each one is on their own spiritual journey -- I still have my own particular views, but I no longer feel the need to foist them. I've come to appreciate others' views as valid and valuable -- and I have a better trust in God, to meet each one where they are, as they are, and go with them on each journey.
HOWEVER, it seems odd to me that those of us WITH various spiritual beliefs cannot be given the freedom to express those beliefs, if only in an educational way, for the benefit of others to better understand us -- and it CAN, and SHOULD, be done in such a way as to be "this is what I believe" rather than "if you believe anything differently you are a nincompoop."
I believe (last I checked!) that we're all adults here, and as such, we can both be considerate of others, AND *choose* to not take offense, or to not be threatened, by the notion that others have varying beliefs from our own.
IF someone feels offended, they can say to the offender, "what you said offends me". And the offender can say something like, "I'm sorry, that was not my intention -- I was trying to convey what I believe, but I didn't mean to harm you in any way, please forgive me." And the offended one can say, "I forgive you." And EACH one can CHOOSE to give the other the benefit of the doubt.
Each one can be a grown-up, and assume the best of the other. It's freeing. It's empowering. It's fun! And, it makes for good relationships, which in turn makes for good conversations.
Given all of THAT, I do not see what the problem is with Lou having the freedom to share his spiritual experience, and to quote what the Rider said to him ... each of us is free to consider whatever he shares, and choose whether to disregard it, or to contemplate it. Freedom!
I believe that unless and until we, as inviduals in various stages of growth, can take responsibility for our own reactions to others, and to examine why we are offended, we're stuck, at the mercy of everyone around us.
When I am offended by someone, I can examine it, and ask myself, "why did that hurt me?" I can ask myself what that incident reminds me of -- it could very well be that it's triggering an older, unresolved hurt from the past -- something which likely needs attention, discovery, and healing. I can determine whether I want to be defined by others, or whether I want to be a person who says, "hmmm, how interesting that they have that opinion." I can ASK them if they intended to put me down or offend me. I have choices - so many choices...!
I see that Lou has been in this community for many years, and has invested a lot of his time and energy into relationships here. I see that he is trying to share something which has been personally meaningful and important to him, with the rest of us here. I would like to honor him, by listening to him, by reponding to him, and allowing his experience to benefit me in whatever way that seems good to me.
How in the world can his open sharing be seen as a threat to a community that's designed as a place in which to share one's faith with others?
I very much enjoy listening to others' faith journeys! I almost always find something that enables me to grow personally, or at least to understand the other person better -- and isn't THAT important, in any context?
I say, let Lou share, as he shares, and let the rest of us exercise our maturity and choices of HOW to respond, as he does.
And, let others share openly as well ... we have nothing to fear but fear itself ...
One woman's opinion, FWIW!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers.""We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something.""Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2008, at 20:04:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-cogbi, posted by Dena on June 10, 2008, at 2:12:31
Thank you for that. I agree with what you said.
Posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2008, at 20:12:32
In reply to Dena, posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2008, at 20:04:42
Sometimes people who have unusual modes of expression are shunned (or not replied to, on for example, Admin) because they seem to be a nuisance.
Even so, it is not to my mind, good manners to do so.
I have both enjoyed and learned from my conversations with Lou on the Faith board.
Posted by Dena on June 13, 2008, at 22:34:32
In reply to Lou, posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2008, at 20:12:32
Thanks for your response, Sigismund -- I was wondering how many days would go by before someone responded ... I'm used to discussion lists where the conversation flows a bit more freely, in every sense of the word...
There does seem to be a sense of inequity here -- as if some are tolerated better than others are. I've never understood it, quite honestly. I can conform to it, if necessary, but I don't believe that true growth flourishes where people are squelched.
I'd like for Lou to be able to resume whatever he wants to say next -- I see that people have the choice to read, or delete, whatever comes their way.
It seems to me that people should feel free to share their experiences, uncensored, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, honesty, and maturity.
I personally don't do well in a punitive environment, but I try to be accommodating, so that I can hear what Lou has to say, and I'm putting forth a plea for him to be as honored and tolerated as the rest of us would like to be ourselves.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers.""We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something.""Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Sigismund on June 14, 2008, at 0:48:55
In reply to Re: Lou » Sigismund, posted by Dena on June 13, 2008, at 22:34:32
Dena, I imagine I would disagree with every second thing Lou says, but when he says that 'the rider said have no other Gods before me' he is only saying what the first Commandment says and only saying what (other?) Christians on the Faith board routinely say, not to speak of that stuff about how Moses brought the law but grace and truth(?) came through Jesus Christ.
So, I agree, there does seem to be an inequity.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2008, at 3:38:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-cogbi, posted by Dena on June 10, 2008, at 2:12:31
> it seems odd to me that those of us WITH various spiritual beliefs cannot be given the freedom to express those beliefs, if only in an educational way, for the benefit of others to better understand us -- and it CAN, and SHOULD, be done in such a way as to be "this is what I believe" rather than "if you believe anything differently you are a nincompoop."
I agree, it may be helpful here to have the freedom to express one's beliefs in certain ways.
> I believe that unless and until we, as inviduals in various stages of growth, can take responsibility for our own reactions to others, and to examine why we are offended, we're stuck, at the mercy of everyone around us.
Some individuals may be stuck, but I'd like them also to feel supported here.
> I see that Lou has been in this community for many years, and has invested a lot of his time and energy into relationships here. I see that he is trying to share something which has been personally meaningful and important to him, with the rest of us here. I would like to honor him, by listening to him, by reponding to him, and allowing his experience to benefit me in whatever way that seems good to me.
Thanks for supporting Lou. Would you be willing to give him some input on whether, and if so, how, to post his beliefs? Since it would be about what to post, that discussion would need to take place some other way, for example, by email.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dena on July 2, 2008, at 23:58:26
In reply to Re: the freedom to express, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2008, at 3:38:27
> > it seems odd to me that those of us WITH various spiritual beliefs cannot be given the freedom to express those beliefs, if only in an educational way, for the benefit of others to better understand us -- and it CAN, and SHOULD, be done in such a way as to be "this is what I believe" rather than "if you believe anything differently you are a nincompoop."
>
> I agree, it may be helpful here to have the freedom to express one's beliefs in certain ways.
>
> > I believe that unless and until we, as inviduals in various stages of growth, can take responsibility for our own reactions to others, and to examine why we are offended, we're stuck, at the mercy of everyone around us.
>
> Some individuals may be stuck, but I'd like them also to feel supported here.
>
> > I see that Lou has been in this community for many years, and has invested a lot of his time and energy into relationships here. I see that he is trying to share something which has been personally meaningful and important to him, with the rest of us here. I would like to honor him, by listening to him, by reponding to him, and allowing his experience to benefit me in whatever way that seems good to me.
>
> Thanks for supporting Lou. Would you be willing to give him some input on whether, and if so, how, to post his beliefs? Since it would be about what to post, that discussion would need to take place some other way, for example, by email.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Bob -
I'm not sure that I understand what it is that's acceptable, and what's not... so I'm not sure that I can advise Lou.
It seems that he's not free to speak about what Judaism teaches. He's seeming to want to express his own spiritual experience, and to put it in light of his understanding as a Jew. To do so, would necessitate quoting from the Bible. Surely it can be done in a way that's seen as educational, rather than dogmatic or demeaning to others. Something like, "Jews view this scripture to mean ... and here's how it played out in my experience."
I'm thinking we could all learn to share our beliefs and experiences openly, for others to "taste and see", but without the implication of force-feeding.
I've discovered that there's much truth to be found in all religions, and all perspectives, and we can learnn from one another.
I've discovered that we can choose to have unity, without unanimity. That if someone else believes differently, it's not a threat to what I believe.
But if we all treat one another with respect and dignity, and appreciate that each of us is on a unique spiritual journey, each one walking in the light they've been given, and each one able to be enriched from others' experiences, I'd think we'd all benefit from a more open atmosphere.
I believe people would share more freely, if they weren't living in fear of reprisal, so much as expectation of a grace-filled reaction. When/if someone makes a mistake, and speaks in a dogmatic way (implying their view is the ONLY right view), that one could have it gently pointed out to them. They can be taught how to express their views with more grace and respect for others, without compromising their own faith. It can be done -- heck, if *I* can learn this, the queen of Block-dom, ANYone can....! ;)
I've seen folks being free to express many tenents of their faith, whether that faith be formed in formal religion, or in personal beliefs -- I'd just like to see Lou free to express himself as anyone else can.
Whether intentional or an oversignt, I do not know, but it appears that something akin to discrimination has happened to Lou -- he's seems to be under the impression that he cannot articulate his Jewish faith here on PBF.
Is that the case? What is Lou able to say, or not say, while posting on PBF? Is the standard the same for everyone, or has he been singled out for whatever reason?
And is it not possible for there to be a more open, grace-based atmosphere on PBF, for the purpose of sharing and learning..?
Thanks for your time and attention.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
Posted by rskontos on July 5, 2008, at 19:55:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-cogbi, posted by Dena on June 10, 2008, at 2:12:31
Dena, I am late to this thread but I will say that what you expressed is beautifully put. And I tend to agree that some people are allowed more freedom of speech than others. Now is this an oversight or by design I cannot say.
rsk
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2008, at 20:24:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2008, at 9:56:17
> > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
>
> It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
>
> > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...feel free to add..to the discussion here..]
The discussion was innitiated by me in requesting clarification. Here is the link to my innitial post in the thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/821127.html
In regards to your reminder procedure and to just ask you for your rationals and that it is fine to discuss the rules and policy here ans such, In part A of my innitial request, I can not find a reply with the criteria used by you to determine if a statement does or does not lead someone to feel accused or put down.
In part D, I do not see a reply.
In part E, I brought up that there are generally accepted criteria used to determine as to if a statemenet could or could not lead someone to feel accused or put down. I also requested in that part that if a member reports to you that something leads them to feel put down, and you take the position that it does not, by what authority do you use {if the statement contains the generally accepted criteria that constitutes what could lead someone to feel put down}to tell the member that the statement in question does not lead that member to feel put down?
If you could reply to the above , then I couold have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.