![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2008, at 9:04:32
Mr. Hsiung,
In regards that it is fine to discuss your rationales and rules and actions taken by the administration, I have the following concerns:
A. What are the rules here made by you in regards for me posting here about I. G. Farben, if any?
a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
b. Can I post here to show the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to Nazi drug companies?
c. Can I post here the association of Rockefeller with Germany including their association during the Riech of the National Socialists? (Nazis)
C. Can you post any rationale(s) that you may have if you are meaning that any of your rules here prohibit me from offering this educational material?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2008, at 12:05:35
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-rokfarben, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2008, at 9:04:32
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards that it is fine to discuss your rationales and rules and actions taken by the administration, I have the following concerns:
> A. What are the rules here made by you in regards for me posting here about I. G. Farben, if any?
> a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
> b. Can I post here to show the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to Nazi drug companies?
> c. Can I post here the association of Rockefeller with Germany including their association during the Riech of the National Socialists? (Nazis)
> C. Can you post any rationale(s) that you may have if you are meaning that any of your rules here prohibit me from offering this educational material?
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to that my post on the forum for {neurotransmitters} was redirected to the {social} forum, my above post is in concern about that.
I would like to post the infomation that I have concerning {neurotransmitters} within the forum designated for discussion concerning neurotransmitters. The fact that there is historical infomation that could provide IMO much education about neurotransmitters to the forum's members, means to me, at least, that the infomation that I would like to provide be allowed to be posted on the forum that is discussing neurotransmitters.
The addtional infomation above is more that I would like to share abour neurotransmitters that even though the infomation is concerning neurotransmitters from a particular period of time, I think that it is relevant to the discussion concerning neurotransmitters.
If you could post your rationale(s) for the redirecting of my post, even though the infomation could have educational content about neurotransmitters,then I could post a respone to your rational(s)
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2008, at 7:40:17
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-rokfarben, posted by Lou Pilder on January 23, 2008, at 9:04:32
> a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
I think it might be conducive to civic harmony if you don't post anything about Nazis, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 9:42:50
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2008, at 7:40:17
> > a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
>
> I think it might be conducive to civic harmony if you don't post anything about Nazis, thanks.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...(I think) that it {>might be< conducive to civic harmony} if you don't post |anything| about Nazis...].
The grammatical structure of your statement here, as a reply from you to me, has a generally accepted meaning that a {probability} is being brought into the discussion as your use of {it >might< be}. For if it {might be}, then there is also the potential that it might >not be<. This could be determined by various methods as to if it could or could not be .
If something [{might be} conducive to civic harmony if I or others don't post about something], then could it not also have the potential to be something that {could be} conducive to civic harmony here?
You wrote that it is your {thinking} that it might be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post >anything< about Nazis. I am interested in what it is in your thinking that you have used to post here that it would be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post {anything} >about< Nazis. If you could post here what it is in your thinking that you used to post here your reply to me, then I could have the opportunity to know what it is in your thinking and post my reply to you here about your thinking. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here as to the grammatical use here of the word {anything}, about Nazis. Does not the word, {anything} have the potential to mean an absolute prohibition as to mean {at all}? If that is the meaning that you are wanting to have others here perceive as the way you are wanting the word {anything} to be meant, how, in your thinking, could that be conducive to civic harmony here if it is an absolute and the forum has a mission for members to offer education and support? If that subject can not be posted about here, what other subjects could, in your thinking, be those that if they are not posted about, will be conducive to civic harmony?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 11:06:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-blstmshrum » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 9:42:50
> > > a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
> >
> > I think it might be conducive to civic harmony if you don't post anything about Nazis, thanks.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...(I think) that it {>might be< conducive to civic harmony} if you don't post |anything| about Nazis...].
> The grammatical structure of your statement here, as a reply from you to me, has a generally accepted meaning that a {probability} is being brought into the discussion as your use of {it >might< be}. For if it {might be}, then there is also the potential that it might >not be<. This could be determined by various methods as to if it could or could not be .
> If something [{might be} conducive to civic harmony if I or others don't post about something], then could it not also have the potential to be something that {could be} conducive to civic harmony here?
> You wrote that it is your {thinking} that it might be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post >anything< about Nazis. I am interested in what it is in your thinking that you have used to post here that it would be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post {anything} >about< Nazis. If you could post here what it is in your thinking that you used to post here your reply to me, then I could have the opportunity to know what it is in your thinking and post my reply to you here about your thinking. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here as to the grammatical use here of the word {anything}, about Nazis. Does not the word, {anything} have the potential to mean an absolute prohibition as to mean {at all}? If that is the meaning that you are wanting to have others here perceive as the way you are wanting the word {anything} to be meant, how, in your thinking, could that be conducive to civic harmony here if it is an absolute and the forum has a mission for members to offer education and support? If that subject can not be posted about here, what other subjects could, in your thinking, be those that if they are not posted about, will be conducive to civic harmony?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reply to me here,[...if you don't post anything {about} Nazis...]. The grammatical structure of your reply has the generally accepted meaning that the word {about} means {concerning}.
My question to you was,[...can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation...{in relation to neurotransmitters}...]. The subject in question concerns {neurotrnasmitters} and the forum concerns neurotransmitters.
The subject of neurotransmitters is about also the use of neuroleptic drugs. There is a wealth of eductional material that I would like to share here concerning those chemicals called neuroleptics and could involve aspects IMO that could be supportive and/or educational to some here. This infomation could give those considering taking nuroleptic drugs IMO a better understanding of the effects that could be to them if they were to take them. This type of educational material is IMO helpfull for others to make a decision concerning the use or non-use of neuroleptic drugs.
How neuroleptic drugs act upon one's nervous system could IMO be important here in the forum's mission of support and education. The way neurotransmitters are discovered and what the uses of neuroleptic agents were before they were used as psychotropic drugs could IMO give light to some in their understanding of the effects upon thier nervous systems and perhaps their entire life ahead. The chemical actions and their consequences IMO are part of what I think others could use to make their own determination as to if they are wanting to use drugs that act upon their neurons and systems related to them.
Research from historical documments can be conducive in my thinking to have an educational and IMO a supportive atmosphere here that could be conducive to civic harmony. One could post the word {trigger} in the subject heading for those that could not feel harmonious if they were to read about historical aspects of neurotrsnmitters that could involve a particular historical political system and the relationship with neurotrnasmitters by the use of drugs that effect one's neurons and the effects on their life from those chemicals put into their bodies.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2008, at 7:25:36
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-urchtnhrt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 11:06:33
> > > > a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
> > >
> > > I think it might be conducive to civic harmony if you don't post anything about Nazis, thanks.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...(I think) that it {>might be< conducive to civic harmony} if you don't post |anything| about Nazis...].
> > The grammatical structure of your statement here, as a reply from you to me, has a generally accepted meaning that a {probability} is being brought into the discussion as your use of {it >might< be}. For if it {might be}, then there is also the potential that it might >not be<. This could be determined by various methods as to if it could or could not be .
> > If something [{might be} conducive to civic harmony if I or others don't post about something], then could it not also have the potential to be something that {could be} conducive to civic harmony here?
> > You wrote that it is your {thinking} that it might be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post >anything< about Nazis. I am interested in what it is in your thinking that you have used to post here that it would be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post {anything} >about< Nazis. If you could post here what it is in your thinking that you used to post here your reply to me, then I could have the opportunity to know what it is in your thinking and post my reply to you here about your thinking. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here as to the grammatical use here of the word {anything}, about Nazis. Does not the word, {anything} have the potential to mean an absolute prohibition as to mean {at all}? If that is the meaning that you are wanting to have others here perceive as the way you are wanting the word {anything} to be meant, how, in your thinking, could that be conducive to civic harmony here if it is an absolute and the forum has a mission for members to offer education and support? If that subject can not be posted about here, what other subjects could, in your thinking, be those that if they are not posted about, will be conducive to civic harmony?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reply to me here,[...if you don't post anything {about} Nazis...]. The grammatical structure of your reply has the generally accepted meaning that the word {about} means {concerning}.
> My question to you was,[...can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation...{in relation to neurotransmitters}...]. The subject in question concerns {neurotrnasmitters} and the forum concerns neurotransmitters.
> The subject of neurotransmitters is about also the use of neuroleptic drugs. There is a wealth of eductional material that I would like to share here concerning those chemicals called neuroleptics and could involve aspects IMO that could be supportive and/or educational to some here. This infomation could give those considering taking nuroleptic drugs IMO a better understanding of the effects that could be to them if they were to take them. This type of educational material is IMO helpfull for others to make a decision concerning the use or non-use of neuroleptic drugs.
> How neuroleptic drugs act upon one's nervous system could IMO be important here in the forum's mission of support and education. The way neurotransmitters are discovered and what the uses of neuroleptic agents were before they were used as psychotropic drugs could IMO give light to some in their understanding of the effects upon thier nervous systems and perhaps their entire life ahead. The chemical actions and their consequences IMO are part of what I think others could use to make their own determination as to if they are wanting to use drugs that act upon their neurons and systems related to them.
> Research from historical documments can be conducive in my thinking to have an educational and IMO a supportive atmosphere here that could be conducive to civic harmony. One could post the word {trigger} in the subject heading for those that could not feel harmonious if they were to read about historical aspects of neurotrsnmitters that could involve a particular historical political system and the relationship with neurotrnasmitters by the use of drugs that effect one's neurons and the effects on their life from those chemicals put into their bodies.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure and writing that if one wants to know your rationale or to discuss actions that you take or to discuss your rules and policy here, the above posts from me to you here have concerns of mine that I would like to know from you and if I knew them, then I could have the opportunity to respond to your rationale(s) accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Sigismund on April 12, 2008, at 18:28:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-blstmshrum » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 9:42:50
Lou, we have discussed Nazis here....
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20070708/msgs/774451.html
in a civil, supportive and educational way (I hope).
What's this IG Farben business?
Something to do with the drug companies?
Weren't they supposed to make dyes?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2008, at 15:30:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-blstmshrum » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 12, 2008, at 18:28:33
> Lou, we have discussed Nazis here....
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20070708/msgs/774451.html
>
> in a civil, supportive and educational way (I hope).
>
> What's this IG Farben business?
>
> Something to do with the drug companies?
>
> Weren't they supposed to make dyes?Sigismund,
You wrote,[...What's this I.G. Farben...?]
Robert Hsiung has made new rules here that were IMO responses to my posting concerning other posts here that are allowed to stand that I object to. (citation asem21)
In relation to I.G. Farben, I would like to post here educational material to help those who are taking or consideing taking psychotropic drugs to have infomation to help them make their own determination as to what those drugs are chemically, where they came from, who made them and how they act on the nervous systems and what they can do to someone's life.
There has also been in those new rules here rules about posting links that I am unsure as to if I can post a link here or not as to what the criteria are for having a link here be acceptable or not and have requested for Mr. Hsiung to post his rationale, or criteria used , for posting links here. Since those criteria are not posted in the TOS here, I am uncertain as to what links I can post here, including links to posts here that are allowed to stand.
Here are some things that you can do your own search on to have a better understanding of I.G. Farben, or one can email me for links if they like.
I.G. Farben, Rockefeller Foundation
Otmer Verschuer
Ernst Rudin
Franz J. Kallman
Josef Mengele
T4
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry
I do not know what your search could bring up.
Lou
citation asem21
I am unsure as to what links I can post here so if anyone would like to see these, you could email me if you like.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2008, at 16:04:18
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-IGdth » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2008, at 15:30:17
> > Lou, we have discussed Nazis here....
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20070708/msgs/774451.html
> >
> > in a civil, supportive and educational way (I hope).
> >
> > What's this IG Farben business?
> >
> > Something to do with the drug companies?
> >
> > Weren't they supposed to make dyes?
>
> Sigismund,
> You wrote,[...What's this I.G. Farben...?]
> Robert Hsiung has made new rules here that were IMO responses to my posting concerning other posts here that are allowed to stand that I object to. (citation asem21)
> In relation to I.G. Farben, I would like to post here educational material to help those who are taking or consideing taking psychotropic drugs to have infomation to help them make their own determination as to what those drugs are chemically, where they came from, who made them and how they act on the nervous systems and what they can do to someone's life.
> There has also been in those new rules here rules about posting links that I am unsure as to if I can post a link here or not as to what the criteria are for having a link here be acceptable or not and have requested for Mr. Hsiung to post his rationale, or criteria used , for posting links here. Since those criteria are not posted in the TOS here, I am uncertain as to what links I can post here, including links to posts here that are allowed to stand.
> Here are some things that you can do your own search on to have a better understanding of I.G. Farben, or one can email me for links if they like.
> I.G. Farben, Rockefeller Foundation
> Otmer Verschuer
> Ernst Rudin
> Franz J. Kallman
> Josef Mengele
> T4
> Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry
> I do not know what your search could bring up.
> Lou
> citation asem21
> I am unsure as to what links I can post here so if anyone would like to see these, you could email me if you like.Friends,
I have assembled different volumes of posts from here/
There is another assembly of posts by me other than citation asem21 which is an assembly of 21 posts that are related to psychotropic drugs. This assembly is of the nature of the aspects of the administration of this site and how it could IMO be related to the mental health of its members, yet I am unsure as to what links to posts here I can or can not post. If you are going to email me for that assembly, ask for asem66.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on April 30, 2008, at 21:32:14
In reply to Lou's reply-anwykstsvmnd, posted by Lou Pilder on March 31, 2008, at 7:25:36
My experience with people in authority, Lou, is that it can be unwise to ask them the rationale for their actions, because it can provoke the most consistent and perhaps therefore hardline position that they might take.
On the main board people say all sorts of things about neuroleptics.
I can't imagine that anything you had to say about them could be any stronger, except, as you know, we have to be very careful when we mention the Nazis here. Brought all sorts of things into disrepute, they did.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 1, 2008, at 19:43:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-anwykstsvmnd » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 30, 2008, at 21:32:14
> My experience with people in authority, Lou, is that it can be unwise to ask them the rationale for their actions, because it can provoke the most consistent and perhaps therefore hardline position that they might take.
>
> On the main board people say all sorts of things about neuroleptics.
>
> I can't imagine that anything you had to say about them could be any stronger, except, as you know, we have to be very careful when we mention the Nazis here. Brought all sorts of things into disrepute, they did.Sigismund,
Mr. Hsiung has in his TOS as I see it that he welcomes members to ask for his rationale here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/716219.html
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2008, at 19:40:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-ranel » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 1, 2008, at 19:43:22
In the time I've been around the civility rules have changed in response to the situation here. I feel reasonably sure that much of that is an intuitive response to the situation on the boards. Therefore there may be no rationale or criteria that fit well over time. Even at a given time the rationale and criteria may be less than transparent. But if you ask those in authority to give rationale and criteria you back them into a corner of having to pretend there is more logic to it than there actually is. Then they have to respond with a ruling that is defensible and therefore not neccessarily the best ruling you might be able to get.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2008, at 20:52:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-ranel » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 11, 2008, at 19:40:44
> In the time I've been around the civility rules have changed in response to the situation here. I feel reasonably sure that much of that is an intuitive response to the situation on the boards. Therefore there may be no rationale or criteria that fit well over time. Even at a given time the rationale and criteria may be less than transparent. But if you ask those in authority to give rationale and criteria you back them into a corner of having to pretend there is more logic to it than there actually is. Then they have to respond with a ruling that is defensible and therefore not neccessarily the best ruling you might be able to get.
Sigismund,
You wrote,[...civility rules change...There may be no...if you ask...you back them into a corner...having to pretend...they have to respond..defensible...not..the best you might...]
In respect to the requests of mine to Mr. Hsiung for his rationales and criteria used in what he writes here, I am responding as a guest here to the invitation by the way of his terms of service here to ask him for those as he writes to please ask him if one here wants to know his rationale.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/715371.html
The TOS here also states that Mr. Hsiung writes that he takes responsibility for what he posts, and I agree with him in that as the administrator here, that IMO the administration has that obligation to take responsibility to in what an administrator writes just as Mr. Hsiung has posted here.
In regards to my requests to Mr. Hsiung for his rationale, my requests IMO are in the time frame at hand and that there has not been a change that I see and in fact, he posts the guidelines of the faith forum again here on this board that IMO means that he is still holding to his rationale for, in that case, writing that some foundations of some faiths put down those of other faiths and I am asking him for clarification/criteria/rationales to what he wrote, for what he wrote has not changed.
There is a statement by Mr. Hsiung that he sometimes gets busy as a response to my requests to him. I think that that is his reason, for thta is what he wrote and I am taking him at his word. If there is a reason other than that, I do not see him writing that here in this particular discussion now.
I do not believe that by requesting from Mr. Hsiung, let's say, that he list his criteria used to determine how a foundation of a a faith puts down those of another faith, or for him to list the criteria here that he uses to make a determination as to what kind of requests for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could or could not be good for the community as a whole or not, is {backing into a corner} as you have stated here becuase he has posted for members to please ask him for his rationale if one here want to know. He also writes here that it is fine to discuss actions that he has taken and to discuss the administration of the site which there is this adminisrtrative board for that purpose.
You wrote that[...they have to respond to a ruling that is defensible....]. I ask as to if there could be a ruling that is not defensible? If so, what in your opinion could that mean if there was a response that was not defensible?
You wrote,[...they have to pretend that there is more logic to it than there actually is...]. Could you post here what authority you could use to say that? For if one has to pretend something, then could that mean to you that a false assertion could be made as an answer to the request for criteria/rationales/clarification? If so, why? For could not a reply be the honest criteria/rationale/clarification?
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 16:30:48
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-dsngnuos? » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2008, at 20:52:43
>You wrote that[...they have to respond to a ruling that is defensible....]. I ask as to if there could be a ruling that is not defensible?
Well, yes, IMO.
>If so, what in your opinion could that mean if there was a response that was not defensible?
You wrote,[...they have to pretend that there is more logic to it than there actually is...]. Could you post here what authority you could use to say that?No authority Lou. It just popped into my head.
>For if one has to pretend something, then could that mean to you that a false assertion could be made as an answer to the request for criteria/rationales/clarification? If so, why?
I can't see why not.
>For could not a reply be the honest criteria/rationale/clarification?
Yes, it could be.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2008, at 16:44:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sigismund-dsngnuos? » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2008, at 16:30:48
> >You wrote that[...they have to respond to a ruling that is defensible....]. I ask as to if there could be a ruling that is not defensible?
>
> Well, yes, IMO.
>
> >If so, what in your opinion could that mean if there was a response that was not defensible?
> You wrote,[...they have to pretend that there is more logic to it than there actually is...]. Could you post here what authority you could use to say that?
>
> No authority Lou. It just popped into my head.
>
> >For if one has to pretend something, then could that mean to you that a false assertion could be made as an answer to the request for criteria/rationales/clarification? If so, why?
>
> I can't see why not.
>
> >For could not a reply be the honest criteria/rationale/clarification?
>
> Yes, it could be.
>Sigismund,
What concerns me here is the phrase,[...they >have to<...and they have to >pretend<...].
After reading your reply and what you wrote, could you post here your opinion as to why there has not been a reply to me with the criteria/rationale, and clarification that I have requested? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote and be better able to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on May 14, 2008, at 16:16:02
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-dlbindf? » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on May 13, 2008, at 16:44:02
>could you post here your opinion as to why there has not been a reply to me with the criteria/rationale, and clarification that I have requested?
Well, Lou, that's a good question, but I would only be guessing as to the answer, and your guess would be as good as mine.
Maybe it's like with therapists?
You know how they don't like answering questions (which I assume comes from sensitivity to power issues) and always answer a question with another one?
Posted by Lou PIlder on June 28, 2008, at 8:59:38
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert Hsiung-blstmshrum » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 26, 2008, at 9:42:50
> > > a. Can I post here the relationship of the Rockefeller foundation with I. G. Farben in relation to neurotransmitters and Nazi doctors?
> >
> > I think it might be conducive to civic harmony if you don't post anything about Nazis, thanks.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...(I think) that it {>might be< conducive to civic harmony} if you don't post |anything| about Nazis...].
> The grammatical structure of your statement here, as a reply from you to me, has a generally accepted meaning that a {probability} is being brought into the discussion as your use of {it >might< be}. For if it {might be}, then there is also the potential that it might >not be<. This could be determined by various methods as to if it could or could not be .
> If something [{might be} conducive to civic harmony if I or others don't post about something], then could it not also have the potential to be something that {could be} conducive to civic harmony here?
> You wrote that it is your {thinking} that it might be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post >anything< about Nazis. I am interested in what it is in your thinking that you have used to post here that it would be conducive to civic harmony if I don't post {anything} >about< Nazis. If you could post here what it is in your thinking that you used to post here your reply to me, then I could have the opportunity to know what it is in your thinking and post my reply to you here about your thinking. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here as to the grammatical use here of the word {anything}, about Nazis. Does not the word, {anything} have the potential to mean an absolute prohibition as to mean {at all}? If that is the meaning that you are wanting to have others here perceive as the way you are wanting the word {anything} to be meant, how, in your thinking, could that be conducive to civic harmony here if it is an absolute and the forum has a mission for members to offer education and support? If that subject can not be posted about here, what other subjects could, in your thinking, be those that if they are not posted about, will be conducive to civic harmony?
> Lou PilderRobert,
I am requesting that we have dialog here in reference to the above in accordance with your reminder procedure. If I was to have the clarification requested, then I and others could have the potential IMO to know in advance what could be posted or not here concerning the topic in question according to your criteria, if given.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2008, at 1:51:11
In reply to Lou's reminder to Robert Hsiung-ehxphotfacehntrp?, posted by Lou PIlder on June 28, 2008, at 8:59:38
I'm not up on this.
(And I have a bad back!)
Is it easy to understand?
Does it mean anything?
Is it compulsory?
And so on and so forth.
This is the end of the 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.