![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 64 to 88 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 5:10:29
In reply to Re: why such things are allowed to stand, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:50:54
> > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
>
> If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote to Zeba,[...a problem, could you please not repeat it?...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean in regards to posting that to her here. I am unsure as to why because the administtrative forum according to your TOS is for the discussion of problems involving the forum, which could mean that the identification of what is the subject of discussion would need to be seen, and to discuss the following:
A. Discuss asking for your rationale for something, which could mean that what is being asked is identified in the request to be seen.
B. Discuss administrative actions taken,which could identify what is what is in question, and would not no action taken be an action?
C. Discuss improvments for the forum which could cite the subject for improvment, (identification) which could be mentioning what is wanting to be discussed as per your TOS
D. Doimg what is good for the community as a whole which could bring up a request for {why} which could then identify what is wanting to be discussed.
E. Writing what can be seen, for is it not written here something like,[...not untill it can be seen can one know it...]?
Zeba's question IMO is a good question. It is a good question IMO because it could have the potential IMO to bring a resolution, if it was discussed and seen. You see, resolving the past has the potential IMO to be benificial for the present and the future for many reasons as could be shown in historical parallels and IMO be good for the community as a whole.
Could not Zeba's question as to {why} be answered by her identifying what she is wanting an answer to so that it can be seen? If not, could you post here your rationale for as to why not? If you could ,then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2008, at 10:50:14
In reply to Re: Please Advise, posted by Sigismund on July 28, 2008, at 4:40:26
> >People could feel put down if its suggested that they might be missing the point of heaven:
>
> I'm on record as saying I not only don't see the virtues of heaven but that it is a petit bourgeois event I would prefer to miss.
>
> >I have seen that Lou has been singled out, for being who he is, and sharing as he shares, with people being frustrated with him, rude to him, and getting away with things far worse than what he's censored for.
>
> Like me, for example.Frinds,
If you are consideriing to post here in this thread, I am asking that you click on the offerd link to a thread here and take into consideration what can be seen in the thread.
I think that if you could, that a reply posted here could have IMO a more understanding concerning the issues presented in this administrative thread and iMo one could be better able to respond to the issues here.
Here is one link to the thread and there could be a tedious process for what can be seen there to find and if you would like for me to give you the post and what is in the post in question so that you do not have to take the time to go through all of the posts, you could email me if you like. If so, please state that you are over 21 and I will post a trigger that what you could see could IMO change your perspective to as to what I am treying to convey here concerning that what could be seen may tie in many aspects of the discussions in other threads and explain IMO many posts here that may be unbeknownst to you.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656735.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
In reply to Re: why such things are allowed to stand, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2008, at 23:50:54
> > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
>
> If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
[...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Sigismund on August 26, 2008, at 18:48:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem? » Lou Pilder, posted by Zeba on August 8, 2008, at 22:17:49
Well Lou
Things could be worse. I remember a time when Christianity was antisemitic. Now, especially in the US, there is Christian Zionism. Is that Hal Lindsay? Anyway, I don't think there is much point in going through past posts. For myself, I would like Christians to take responsibility for their demonology, not only in Christianity, but wherever it spreads to, about which it would be uncivil to make further reference.
Posted by Dena on August 26, 2008, at 23:50:24
In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
If we shouldn't even bring attention to something that's previously posted, due to how problematic it is -- why is such a problematic thing allowed to remain in place...?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 27, 2008, at 14:10:46
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-fstrasem?, posted by Sigismund on August 26, 2008, at 18:48:04
> For myself, I would like Christians to take responsibility for their demonology, not only in Christianity, but wherever it spreads to, about which it would be uncivil to make further reference.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is to be sensitive to those of all religions, could you please clarify or rephrase the above?
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Sigismund on August 27, 2008, at 22:34:53
In reply to Please rephrase » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 27, 2008, at 14:10:46
OK
Lou has been concerned with posts that he has felt to be antisemitic and have been allowed to stand, in contrast to the threat to block him should he mention what the Rider said to him.
Some of these posts have mentioned or been linked to the following passages
John 5, verse 16:
'the Jews persecuted Him and sought to slay Him'
verse 18:
'The Jews sought more to kill Him'
verse 23
'He that honoureth not the son honoureth not the Father'.The history of Christian antisemitism has been informed by such passages from the Bible. The relationship of such passages to the antisemitism of the Nazi regime is more tenuous, but many Christians, since WWII, have worried that the foundations of their faith may have been a contributing factor to the demonology of the Nazis.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 28, 2008, at 11:29:18
In reply to Re: Please rephrase » Deputy Dinah, posted by Sigismund on August 27, 2008, at 22:34:53
> ...many Christians, since WWII, have worried that the foundations of their faith may have been a contributing factor to the demonology of the Nazis.
I think this statement is fine.
But some of those verses should not be posted on this site, so you shouldn't quote them on Admin either. The fact that they're in the Bible doesn't mean that they can be posted on board.
Also, Babble might not be the proper place to express some of your views about the history of Christianity, for the same reasons.
Your freedom of speech is limited here.
Regarding the history on this site. It is unfortunate if in the past antisemitic statements have gone without censure. The deputies are very sensitive to antisemitic content, and we'll do our best to make sure that we enforce the already existing rules about sensitivity and civility to those of all religions. Dr. Bob is clear that he doesn't wish to allow statements that could lead those of any religion to feel accused or put down. But he doesn't go back years to add PBC's, and he just doesn't remove posts even if they are uncivil. There are some good reasons for this, including technical reasons such as the fact that a PBC is generally considered to cover all preceding actions. He has said many times that he prefers to look forward rather than go back, and I think posts that are years old will probably not be adjusted now, based on my knowledge of his traditional behaviors.
I don't know why Lou isn't allowed to post what the Rider said to him. My understanding of the rules is as I outlined in another post. If what he wishes to post falls into the what's allowable, or if it can be edited to fall within what's allowable, then he can post it.
Posted by muffled on August 29, 2008, at 1:11:57
In reply to Please follow site guidelines » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 28, 2008, at 11:29:18
wasn't Jesus himself Jewish?
Isn't Christianity based on Christ, who was a Jew?
People been killing each other since always.
If it not bout religion, its bout race, or bout robbing and pillaging other villages, etc etc etc.
I don't think anybody, any religion, any skin color, any culture is perfect. We ALL gots flaws.
We all got killing in our anscetry somewhere.
Its the nature of humanoty. ALL humanity irregardless of race creed or religion.
Its a fallen f*ck*d world.
We may as well try and make the best of it and do our best to build up, not tear down, to be kind and try to not cause more pain than there already is. Just to try and do as best we can (which at times may not seem like much), just keep going.
WTF else can we do?
See man has so much evil, but there is so much goodness too.
Share the good.
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 12:46:57
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 19:24:48
> I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
>
> I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
>
> My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
>
> Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.Dinah,
You wrote,[...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...]
I am unsure as to what you are using as criteria to determine in your mind to constitute a belief. I am also unsure as to what you consider to be the administration. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly by having a definition of what in your belief constitutes in your thinking the above so that we could agree or not as to what a discussion could be founded on per the grammatical structure in your statement in question.
A. In [...the administration..] could that mean;
1. only Mr. Hsiung?
2. all the deputies and Mr. Hsiung?
3. Mr. Hsiung and one deputy?
4. the deputies only?
5. one deputy?
6. some other combination?
7. something else?
B. In [...If I believed the administration of this site was...] could you clarify by listing criteria that could or could not be a criteria that could lead you to consider that the criteria constitutes something that could cause you to have the belief in queation? If you could list those criteria that you use, then I, and perhaps others, could have the opportunity to have a better understanding of what the site could or could not consider as criteria that could or could not determine if the admiinistration of this site is or is not antisemitic, by understanding your thinking as to what a belief is or is not.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 13:05:23
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-darhbrmetsdarhod » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 12:46:57
I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 14:54:07
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-darhbrmetsdarhod » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 13:05:23
> I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
>
> I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
>
> I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
>
> I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.Dinah,
Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-clairadminstrtion » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 14:54:07
> > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> >
> > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> >
> > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> >
> > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
>
> Dinah,
> Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> LouDinah,
Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordingly
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for criteria-sitrhn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
> > > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> > >
> > > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> > >
> > > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> > >
> > > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
> >
> > Dinah,
> > Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> > The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> > Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> > Lou
>
> Dinah,
> Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
> If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordinglyFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you would like to see what are generally considered to be the accepted criteria that determine as to if a school, or a club, or a government or some other body of members of some sort of community is or is not antisemitic as to how it is run. These criteria have been determined by the historical record from tranascripts of trials where this has been wanting to be determined. There are 7 major criteria and other criteria and I think that if you do not know them, if you knew of them ahead of posting here that that could give you a better understanding of those criteria in relation to this discussion and I think that you could then make a better determination of your own as to the question at hand here.
Lou
Posted by Dena on September 18, 2008, at 16:30:57
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
I see that the administration (the system, not the individuals) here is fear-based, and thus various religious/spiritual beliefs get maligned, both intentionally and unintentionally (by various posters), and that a great many harmful things are swept under the rug, rather than resolved.
I see that those unresolved things fester, and do not remain under said rug, but breed there (much like a malignancy), and thus an atmosphere of distrust, unsafety, and repression is fostered, which backfires on the very purpose of this group.
I'm not sure that I would say that it's specifically *only* antisemitic, as I've seen other groups/belief systems maligned as well. I see it across the board more clearly, now that I'm no longer aligned with any particular religious group. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can see that other dogs are indeed getting kicked to the curb, and that their pain is being dismissed (NOT that I'm calling *any* person here a "dog" -- just building on a metaphor).
Having said that, I am heading out of state for a wedding, and do not have time to comment further, nor to respond, should anyone reply to this.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:09:36
In reply to Lou's request to Dinah for criteria-sitrhn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 15:14:17
I'm sorry, Lou. If you're looking for a written list of criteria, I fear I can't give you what you're looking for. I don't even think I could explain it informally without referring back to what I said before.
Thank you for clarifying that you weren't implying that any of the administration was antisemitic.
I think we all do our best. We all fall short of perfection, I'm sure.
Posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:13:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun » Lou Pilder, posted by Dena on September 18, 2008, at 16:30:57
I'll try not to personalize this, although it's hard for me. I felt hurt when I read your post. I'm not saying that's your intent.
I do my best not to kick or malign anyone.
As I told Lou, I don't have any claims to perfection.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 17:14:39
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2008, at 16:09:56
> > > > I daresay I mean the administration of the site. The way it's run.
> > > >
> > > > I know my fellow deputies better than I know Dr. Bob, so I can state affirmatively that they are not antisemitic.
> > > >
> > > > I am not in Dr. Bob's confidence or his life, but I have no reason to believe that he is antisemitic.
> > > >
> > > > I will assume that you did not mean to imply in any way that any of the administration is antisemitic.
> > >
> > > Dinah,
> > > Thank you for your clarification. I think that you are meaning now in my request {something else} which is the way the site is {administrated} which is what I was wanting clarification of and was not intending to imply that anyone is antisemitic.
> > > The clarification request was because the word {administration} could have different meanings. One is that the word means the body of persons who administer, and the other is {the way the administrators perform which is generally the managemnet. I was wanting for you to declare what you were wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly and others perhaps could also have a better understanding of what you were wanting to mean. Here is a dictionary definition for administrtaion:
> > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration
> > > Now that we have clarified that your statement that if the {administration was antisemitic means to you that it is the way the site is {administered}, I now have a better understanding of what you wanted to mean in,[...If I thought that the administration of the site was antisemitic...].
> > > Lou
> >
> > Dinah,
> > Now that we know that you are wanting to mean that the {administration} of the site is the way the site is run, I would like to look at [...If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I...] in relation to your clarification to focus on the way the site is run as to what constitutes in your thinking that could cause you to believe that the {administration} of the site is or is not antisemitic.
> > If you could list some of those criteria that you use in your thinking to determine that, then I, and perhaps others, could have a better understanding of how the belief is founded on and respond acordingly
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to email me if you would like to see what are generally considered to be the accepted criteria that determine as to if a school, or a club, or a government or some other body of members of some sort of community is or is not antisemitic as to how it is run. These criteria have been determined by the historical record from tranascripts of trials where this has been wanting to be determined. There are 7 major criteria and other criteria and I think that if you do not know them, if you knew of them ahead of posting here that that could give you a better understanding of those criteria in relation to this discussion and I think that you could then make a better determination of your own as to the question at hand here.
> LouFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I would like for you to click on the offerd link and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, there could be more understanding of the issues here and that you could be better able to post your response here. And if you could look at the posts involving replacement theology, I would appreciate that because of what IMO has the potential to come up in this discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439097.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
In reply to Lou's request for consideration-ad Ignorantiam, posted by Lou PIlder on July 30, 2008, at 17:00:03
Friends,
If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:11:25
In reply to Lou's request -schoughalovtubhufalough, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2008, at 14:01:13
> Friends,
> If you are considering posting a response here in this thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here and read the posts in the thread. I think that if you do, then you could have a better understanding of the issues here in this thread and parallel threads.
> There could be some want for additional information and if you would like that and do not want to post a request for additional infomation here, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/7772917.html
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> there is an underscore between my name and the 1188The corrected link is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772917.html
Posted by Dena on September 23, 2008, at 17:47:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request for consideration-yrowncncluzun » Dena, posted by Dinah on September 18, 2008, at 17:13:00
> I'll try not to personalize this, although it's hard for me. I felt hurt when I read your post. I'm not saying that's your intent.
>
> I do my best not to kick or malign anyone.
>
> As I told Lou, I don't have any claims to perfection.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the delay, Dinah -- I've been out of town the last several days.
I'm also sorry that what I said hurt you -- that wasn't my intention. I tried to avoid that by saying that I saw problems with the *system* here in the administration, not with the *individuals*. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, personally. I see you as a person trying to make a difference for others, trying to make this world (your corner of it, your sphere of influence) a better place -- but I see that you're quite hampered by a system that attempts (likely through good, yet controlling intentions) to keep things "in check"... I see that system backfiring, and actually causing more harm than it's trying to prevent.
Again -- my opinion, based on my experience, and my observations. YMMV.
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 Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
In reply to Lou's request for a rationale-dionantheblmnts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2008, at 16:47:04
> > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> >
> > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
> In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your ratrionale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
> > > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> > >
> > > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > [Dr.] Hsiung,
> > You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> > Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> > [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> > If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> > In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> > I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> > If you are wanting to mean that the statement in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statement has not been addressed in the past posts where it appears, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> [Dr.] Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your rationale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
> Lou Pilder
Posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to [Dr.] Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Geegee on September 25, 2008, at 21:59:38
how come you changed Mr to Dr ?
Took me awhiles to figger it eh?!!LOL!!!!
Cuz he both ain't he?
Lotsa times I just call him Bob, cuz he NOT above me.
He just a dude.
Ya that Bob dude annoys the hoo outta me LOL!
Love to hate THAT dude.
But reckon he knows that and don't give a rats *ss bout it.
Ha!
Not meaning to put ya down OK Gee gee, cuz I no bettern nobody either. Just was genuinely curious is all.
Respond or not, best wishes and all K?
Ya!
Posted by Geegee on September 26, 2008, at 16:39:50
In reply to how come? » Geegee, posted by muffled on September 26, 2008, at 14:11:08
Thanks for asking, muffled.
I don't know how Dr. Bob feels about using proper titles. My reason for editing is not about Dr. Bob, rather, it's about how I was brought up and what I believe regarding addressing others using titles. And it's about inferences I've made regarding this specific behavior. It's a personal thing for me. I'm sure I'll get bored with it sooner or later. :)
Warmly,
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.