![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 7:00:39
In reply to Lou's reply-request to readers, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:55:09
> > > > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
> > >
> > > I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> > >
> > > > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
> > >
> > > My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
> > >
> > > Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...'OK" to mean "acceptable".."supportive" to mean "helpful"..So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive...].
> > You say that the statement in question is acceptable, but not necessarily supportive.
> > Now the statement is acceptable to you, and readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for what is said about the Jews and others that have faiths that are different from the claim made in the statement about them on the basis that your TOS says that readers are to try to trust you in that what you do here will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they did.
> > Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life. This includes the Jewish children that were ghettoized and starved to death, the Islamic children gassed to death, the Native Americans slaughtered, those murdered in the crusades, the inquisition, the Spainish Expulsion, and all the other people that were murdered by those that accepted the claim in question. Now those murderers that accepted the claim in question, think that they have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they murdered the children or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children, maybe right before they were hanged as war-criminals, or they could have had someone else do the accepting for them while they were infants or after they died. So I have a want for further information from you so that clarification could be given as to what you mean by "good". If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly. Here is what the claim in question can be thought to be.
> > [...The ONLY reason that the bible states for one to miss out from having forgiveness and Eternal Life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...]
> > A. Why would it be good for this community as a whole for it to be acceptable to post here what could be thought by some to mean that the Jewish children murdered by those that said that they were doing God's will to kill them, are not forgiven and they can not have eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question?
> > B.
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant her, I am requesting that you view the following video and read the following article. This is because it is said to be acceptable to post here something like the following:
> [...The ONLY reason given in God's word to cause one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior...].
> To see the video:
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [ youtube, StaPFSqqFDk ]
> To read the article:
> A. Pull Up Google
> B. Type in:
> [ The Christianity revealed in his speeches and proclamations ]
> Usually first, and to verify, it is compiled by Jim Walker on Feb 27 1997correction to link to video:
[ youtube, StaPF5qqFDk ]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 16:12:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2013, at 18:42:44
> Dr Bob I heed your advise Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote that you will heed (Mr Hsiung's ) advise. I am unsure if you know what his advise is because I can not be sure due to the grammatical structure of his statement that says something like that [..if people see that he does not respond to me, then others themselves may not respond to you...]. Then there is the problematic to me grammatical structure as he adds more to it that people can see by clicking on the top where Phillipa responds to and look at what Mr. Hsiung said that Phillipa responded to as to heed.
But there is the fact that he says that he has a reason to not respond to me, and that reason involves something in relation to that if people see that he does not respond to me, then others themselves may not respond to me but there is something else there that I do not understand.
So I would like to know if your understanding of what Mr Hsiung says involves that you not respond to me? If not, what is your understanding of what Mr Hsiung says in relation to that if you see that he does not respond to me, that others themselves may not respond to me. If I was to know how you understand what he said, then I could respond to you accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 11, 2013, at 18:25:33
In reply to Lou's request-addvohkey » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 16:12:16
My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:27:09
In reply to Re: Lou's request-addvohkey » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 11, 2013, at 18:25:33
> My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote the above.
Now I do not see at all how you arrived at what you wrote on the basis that you wrote that you would {heed} as to what Mr Hsiung posted. Let's look at what he said:
[...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
Now Mr Hsiung's response to me here was from my request to him to respond to what he meant by what he wrote. This involved as to if he meant 'OK" was supportive or not. He said that "OK' probably meant "acceptable".
I fail to see how him not responding to me in cases like that, how his non-responding to me could cause others to not respond to my other posts.
I would like very much for you to explain how you got out of what Mr Hsiung wrote to arrive at posts concerning responding to others concerning facts about mind-altering drugs. Those facts could mark the difference between them being a live person or a corpse, for it is generally agreed that 42,000 people were killed by psychiatric drugs just last year alone and this number will increase going forward due to more children being drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor and more mass-advertising here in the U.S.
I am giving readers information that they could use to make a more-informed decision as to take these drugs or not. That is conducive to the welfare of the community because people could have a better understanding when they have more information, and IMHHHHO lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided.
Now this question:
Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads were there is an outstanding request from me to MR Hsiung, by what you read from Mr Hsiung here that is cited?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:56:23
In reply to Lou's reply-ihnphlew » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:27:09
> > My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> You wrote the above.
> Now I do not see at all how you arrived at what you wrote on the basis that you wrote that you would {heed} as to what Mr Hsiung posted. Let's look at what he said:
> [...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
> Now Mr Hsiung's response to me here was from my request to him to respond to what he meant by what he wrote. This involved as to if he meant 'OK" was supportive or not. He said that "OK' probably meant "acceptable".
> I fail to see how him not responding to me in cases like that, how his non-responding to me could cause others to not respond to my other posts.
> I would like very much for you to explain how you got out of what Mr Hsiung wrote to arrive at posts concerning responding to others concerning facts about mind-altering drugs. Those facts could mark the difference between them being a live person or a corpse, for it is generally agreed that 42,000 people were killed by psychiatric drugs just last year alone and this number will increase going forward due to more children being drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor and more mass-advertising here in the U.S.
> I am giving readers information that they could use to make a more-informed decision as to take these drugs or not. That is conducive to the welfare of the community because people could have a better understanding when they have more information, and IMHHHHO lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided.
> Now this question:
> Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads were there is an outstanding request from me to MR Hsiung, by what you read from Mr Hsiung here that is cited?
> LouPhillipa,
Now here is another question;
Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads other than those where there is an outstanding request from me to Mr. Hsiung?
If you look at what he wrote that you are heeding, he says that [... if posters see that he does not respond to me, then they themselves may not respond to you...]
Now the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung are requests to him and I am not asking others to respond to me in his behalf. So which posts by me are you heeding his advise and what is his advise that you see, if any?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2013, at 6:40:57
In reply to Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2013, at 6:35:36
> > > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
> >
> > I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> >
> > > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
> >
> > My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
> >
> > Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> That could put Jews in a false light and arouse hatred toward all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. By you saying that it is acceptable for one to write that here also could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me here as a Jew, along with anyone else that does not accept the claim in question. It could lead readers to discount what I write here from the Jewish perspective as a Jew and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held.
> Now you say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. By you saying that it is acceptable for the statement in question to be posted here, and if the statement could spark a fire of hate toward Jews and others as it has done historically, what "good" could come here from you saying that it is acceptable since now others could post what is analogous to what you say is acceptable to be posted about the Jews here and you will also allow what could come from your acceptance of the statement in question that says that the Jewish children murdered by Jew-haters that claimed to be superior to Jews and others that those Jewish children are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life while the murderers have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This could mean that those murderers could have a free pass to murder because they either accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they killed and did atrocities to the children, or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children. And the poster says that the bible says that. Does it? I have been revealed differently.
> LouMr Hsiung,
You say in the following:
[...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
I do not like this response written here by you and I want you to clarify what you are wanting readers to think as to what you are wanting to mean by what you wrote here. This is because IMHHHO what you wrote about me could stigmatize me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held an induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me. This is because what you wrote has he potential IMHO for a subset of people to think that what you wrote here is advise to heed concerning my posts in that there is the specter that it could mean that you are using a tactic to have others not respond to me. The tactic is that there is the potential IMO for a subset of people to think that you will be indifferent to my requests and leave my requests to you outstanding so that others that see you do this, could also not respond to me. This could amount to a boycott happening to me by you using this tactic of what has the potential IMO to be considered to be deliberate indifference to my requests to you.
I think that by you doing this that you could arouse anti-Semitic feelings against me and all Jews because the subject involved in the post is my request for you to define what you mean by "OK' as it involves you saying that it is acceptable now for members to post something like that the ONLY way that the bible says that people will miss out on forgiveness and eternal life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. That alone could arouse hatred toward the Jews in a community where it is acceptable to post such, for the statement insult Jews and all others that do not accept the claim in question as that their children that were murdered by Jew-haters that claimed to have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, do not have forgiveness or eternal life while the murderers that accepted Jesus do have forgiveness and eternal life even if the acceptance is before or after the atrocities and murder by them of the Jewish children was perpetrated.
One member here thinks that what you posted is advise to them. I think that what you posted could have the potential to induce others to not post responses to what I post, which could amount to boycotting me and put a badge of shame on me and I want you to post here clarification of what you want your statement to mean.
Friends, if you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am asking for you to view the following video.
Lou
To see this video:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[ youtube, Xh95IjfsBjI ]
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
In reply to Lou's reply-wygud » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:28:22
> Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life.
You know, I think you're right. I was seeing:
> The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
as analogous to:
> People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
which I consider OK, but it might actually be more analogous to:
> My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
which I don't consider OK.
Thanks for persisting until I saw my error.
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on September 13, 2013, at 0:50:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
Interesting. Since this
>> My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
is (paraphrased slightly but repeated over and over and over and over in the Torah/Christian OTs and more...) THE primary commandment/foundational statement of Judaism and Christianity. And so, if it's not "okay" to even mention that it is what a poster's faith says, then, well....I say please shut down the Faith board for starters, 'cause there is just no point trying to walk such a tightrope...where discussion can't even start.
I mean, basically, it is just quoting from the Bible, but I suppose that's not really okay either. hmmm.
So confusing. What is the difference between that statement and this one:
>>My doctors say people should never take SSRIs or use anything before non-drug treatments for depression.
or this one
>>My specialists say deaf people should use ASL and ASL only and never learn to lip read.
And so forth?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2013, at 9:23:26
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
> > Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life.
>
> You know, I think you're right. I was seeing:
>
> > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> as analogous to:
>
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, but it might actually be more analogous to:
>
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK.
>
> Thanks for persisting until I saw my error.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Thanks for posting until I saw my error...].
I am here to try to save lives, prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and to stop the promulgation of ,in particular but not limited to, statements that have the potential to arouse hatred toward the Jews.
In this case here, there is the statement in question in the thread where it was originally posted still able to be actuated by those doing searches and they could see the statement stand as acceptable. I am asking that you take the initial effort and time to go to that thread and make a notation to indicate that the statement is not acceptable here. If you could, then I think that it could go a long way to steer this community in a direction away from hate being able to be considered acceptable here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2013, at 10:01:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on September 13, 2013, at 0:50:21
> Interesting. Since this
>
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> is (paraphrased slightly but repeated over and over and over and over in the Torah/Christian OTs and more...) THE primary commandment/foundational statement of Judaism and Christianity. And so, if it's not "okay" to even mention that it is what a poster's faith says, then, well....I say please shut down the Faith board for starters, 'cause there is just no point trying to walk such a tightrope...where discussion can't even start.Discussion can start, it just can't include those beliefs. Yes, it's a tightrope. Advanced posting. What's the point? Maybe one is that it could be a way for people who seem different to find out what they have in common.
> So confusing. What is the difference between that statement and this one:
>
> > My doctors say people should never take SSRIs or use anything before non-drug treatments for depression.
>
> or this one
>
> > My specialists say deaf people should use ASL and ASL only and never learn to lip read.
>
> And so forth?Good question, anybody have any ideas?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2013, at 20:00:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
> > Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life.
>
> You know, I think you're right. I was seeing:
>
> > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> as analogous to:
>
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, but it might actually be more analogous to:
>
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK.
>
> Thanks for persisting until I saw my error.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote that you prefer discussion to debate. Now I would like to go on in or discussion here by presenting to you the following for discussion.
Here is a link and there are points that I raised in my reply to the member posting about me here for our discussion.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049220.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2013, at 0:23:51
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-kuntynewd, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2013, at 20:00:44
> You wrote that you prefer discussion to debate. Now I would like to go on in or discussion here by presenting to you the following for discussion.
> Here is a link and there are points that I raised in my reply to the member posting about me here for our discussion.Could you recap the points here, so I don't have to go back? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2013, at 10:53:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2013, at 0:23:51
> > You wrote that you prefer discussion to debate. Now I would like to go on in or discussion here by presenting to you the following for discussion.
> > Here is a link and there are points that I raised in my reply to the member posting about me here for our discussion.
>
> Could you recap the points here, so I don't have to go back? Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung, to continue our discussion, I posted a link that brought up a statement posted here, which is:
[...it only takes ones person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website...]. Then I posted a link to where you said that you would honor your own TOS here by responding to notifications to members but giving yourself the option of leaving my notifications outstanding. You said that you will have this option, which is treating my notifications to you differently from the other members, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination, because it may be good for you and good for the community as a whole to do so.
Let us first deal with the statement in question where I could be seen as the subject person here that [...challenges the health of the community...]. What I would like to know from you in order for us to have this discussion is that you now say that support takes precedence, but statements that could not be supportive could be allowed to stand because they could be {OK} which could mean that they are {acceptable} but they could or could not be {supportive}. So I would like to know from you as to if the statement in question is either {OK}, or {acceptable} or {supportive} or a combination of those or something else, since you now say that you could be in error.
In any reply to me, I would like for you to look at the contents of the following article to include in your thinking in any reply to me to tell me as to if the statement is supportive or OK or acceptable or something else.
Lou PIlder
To see this article, pull up Google. Then type in:
[Statements by and Senior Concerning Jews and Judaism]
This is usually first and to identify it there is the site that it comes from as,[www.ess.uwe.ac.UK/...]
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2013, at 22:26:02
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-kuntinued » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2013, at 10:53:18
> So I would like to know from you as to if the statement in question is either {OK}, or {acceptable} or {supportive} or a combination of those or something else, since you now say that you could be in error.
Sorry, but which statement is in question?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2013, at 7:43:23
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2013, at 22:26:02
> > So I would like to know from you as to if the statement in question is either {OK}, or {acceptable} or {supportive} or a combination of those or something else, since you now say that you could be in error.
>
> Sorry, but which statement is in question?
>
> Bob
>Mr Hsiung,
The statement in question is:
[...Unfortunately, in this environment,it only takes one person with impunity to challenge the health of the website...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2013, at 0:54:18
In reply to Lou's clairification-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2013, at 7:43:23
> > > So I would like to know from you as to if the statement in question is either {OK}, or {acceptable} or {supportive} or a combination of those or something else, since you now say that you could be in error.
>
> The statement in question is:
> [...Unfortunately, in this environment,it only takes one person with impunity to challenge the health of the website...].I'd consider that OK = acceptable.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2013, at 5:53:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2013, at 0:54:18
> > > > So I would like to know from you as to if the statement in question is either {OK}, or {acceptable} or {supportive} or a combination of those or something else, since you now say that you could be in error.
> >
> > The statement in question is:
> > [...Unfortunately, in this environment,it only takes one person with impunity to challenge the health of the website...].
>
> I'd consider that OK = acceptable.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote, [...I'd consider that OK=acceptable...].
Since I requested that you declare as to if the statement is supportive or just acceptable to you, then I consider that your answer is that the statement is not supportive, but you are going to allow it anyway because it is acceptable to you.
Just because it is acceptable to you, that does not mean that it is an acceptable statement according to your own TOS here, but you are going to allow it anyway. Without there being posted by you your rationale for allowing what is not supportive to be acceptable, then readers could apply their own thinking as to what your rationale is for allowing an unsupportive statement to be acceptable by you. And more than that, the statement in question does not specify what postings and by who the poster is referring to. But I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community. The use of that phrase could arouse anti-Semitic feelings toward me as IMHHHO the ancient false blaming of the Jews for bringing the Black Plague upon Europe that killed 1/2 the population as the Jews were blamed falsely for poisoning the wells. The plague was brought by a rat flea that spread the infection, unbeknownst to those accusers of the Jews at that time.
I do not want anyone to think that what you say is acceptable here to write about me that blames me for challenging the health of this community. For the posts to substantiate such a blameing are not specified. That means that readers could think that any of what I write here could challenge the health of the community. That could be what I write from a Jewish perspective as that the Jewish perspective is that one could have a new heart, a new spirit and a new mind as I posted from the book called Ezekiel. Or from the book called Genesis, where the Jewish perspective starts with,[...In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth...]. That could be what the poster meant, since there is nothing specified, as to what challenges the health of the community.
BY you saying that the statement in question is acceptable, you could allow me to become a victim of anti-Semitic violence, for the statement could put me in a false light and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce disparaging, hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me, blaming me (falsely) for challenging the health of this community. I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community unless the community wants those facts repressed so that the parent does not have what could be the information that could prevent their child from killing themselves and or others, and even commit mass-murder. I am following the rules here as any human being could do. And your rules say:
[...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. Our goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported. But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it is true --if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it [Robert Hsiung 7-22-02]
Now you say that the statement in question is acceptable, but not supportive. I ask so that I can further be able to post my response to you here;
A. What is your rationale for saying that it is acceptable when your own TOS says not to post what is not supportive, for support take precedence?
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
In reply to Lou's reply-psupoartkesprecedence » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2013, at 5:53:33
> I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
> I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 1:58:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
> That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
Posted by SLS on September 18, 2013, at 2:20:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 1:58:14
> > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.The Ph.D. in you is shining through.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 6:44:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 18, 2013, at 2:20:14
sigh. i wish. i wish i could remember where i read that...
;-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 0:31:46
> > I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
>
> > I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
>
> Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
>
> I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community...].
You say that it is acceptable for this to be said about me here, but not supportive.
It is not what a statement could mean that can not be seen that determines the acceptability here, but it is what can be seen that makes that determination. Readers can know it when it is seen, and not until it is seen can one know it, as you say in your TOS here.
What can be seen is what it is. And here the statement that I am [...challenging the health of this community...] can be seen as it is, for it is what it is. Now if you want to say that it could mean something else, so what? Here is your rule:
[...Please don't be sarcastic, treat injury or death lightly, suggest that others harm themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down---post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize--Even if you're quoting someone else...].
You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
Now looking at your own TOS here, one sees
[...please do not jump to conclusions...do not post anything that {could} lead one to feel accused or put down...].
Now you say that the statement could or could not be a bad thing. But it still {could} be either. And readers could see me in a false light when they perceive me in that I am challenging the health of this community and think in their mind the generally accepted meaning of that used historically and I could be blamed. This blaming of me is *not acceptable to me*, my friend, no matter how you want to pervert your own rules to accommodate this here. If this is acceptable by you, then anyone could post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down when your own rule says that can not post anything of that nature that {could} lead one to feel that.
You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power. You say that it may be good for you and the community as a whole for you to have the option to leave my requests outstanding. Now you say it may be that the poster of the statement in question meant something else other than what can be seen. He may also have not meant anything else other than what readers could think when the see the statement in question, and the rule is what {could} lead another to feel...
If this is allowed by you, then hate could be posted to abound here because you could say that the one that posted the hate could have meant something else.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 15:38:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
> > > I could be seen as the subject person and it then becomes my postings that could be thought to be those that challenge the health of the community.
> >
> > > I am trying to save lives and prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and bring life and life more abundantly to readers here. I am trying to offer educational facts to parents so that they could make a more informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor. That is supportive in any community
> >
> > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community. In fact, I see you that way myself. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be challenged. That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
> >
> > I bet others here would also like to save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions. Have you considered working with them?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community...].
> You say that it is acceptable for this to be said about me here, but not supportive.
> It is not what a statement could mean that can not be seen that determines the acceptability here, but it is what can be seen that makes that determination. Readers can know it when it is seen, and not until it is seen can one know it, as you say in your TOS here.
> What can be seen is what it is. And here the statement that I am [...challenging the health of this community...] can be seen as it is, for it is what it is. Now if you want to say that it could mean something else, so what? Here is your rule:
> [...Please don't be sarcastic, treat injury or death lightly, suggest that others harm themselves or others, jump to conclusions about others, post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down---post information that you know to be false, exaggerate or overgeneralize--Even if you're quoting someone else...].
> You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
> Now looking at your own TOS here, one sees
> [...please do not jump to conclusions...do not post anything that {could} lead one to feel accused or put down...].
> Now you say that the statement could or could not be a bad thing. But it still {could} be either. And readers could see me in a false light when they perceive me in that I am challenging the health of this community and think in their mind the generally accepted meaning of that used historically and I could be blamed. This blaming of me is *not acceptable to me*, my friend, no matter how you want to pervert your own rules to accommodate this here. If this is acceptable by you, then anyone could post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down when your own rule says that can not post anything of that nature that {could} lead one to feel that.
> You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power. You say that it may be good for you and the community as a whole for you to have the option to leave my requests outstanding. Now you say it may be that the poster of the statement in question meant something else other than what can be seen. He may also have not meant anything else other than what readers could think when the see the statement in question, and the rule is what {could} lead another to feel...
> If this is allowed by you, then hate could be posted to abound here because you could say that the one that posted the hate could have meant something else.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
You say that it is acceptable {to you} for the statement in question to be posted here about me. And I say to you that by you allowing the statement to be considered to be acceptable, you could allow stigmatization of me to abound here. And you could allow scapegoating to abound here. And you could allow hate to abound here. And you could allow all other members now to post the same thing about me here, for theirs is the acceptance of the leader. Now all members can post not only that statement about me, but whatever is {analogous} to it by the nature that you say that statements that are analogous to an example of one of your rules are also the same as.
Now the statement says,[...Unfortunately, it only takes one member to...that could challenge the health of this community...]. It says {unfortunately}. This means that it could be bad for the community as to what I post here, and harm could come to it. And there is not a citation to substantiate the claim, so I can not respond to show the context of whatever is what I post that could cause harm to this community. And since there is not specified what I am posting, the posting in question could be from my postings from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, and that {could} be what the poster is using to blame me for the unfortunate consequences that the poster leads people to think that will come to them for allowing me to be a member here. That goes back to the ancient charge against the Jews of causing the Black Death that killed 1/2 of the European people in the 1300s. The hateful charge against the Jews blamed them that they poisoned the wells, but unbeknownst to the accusers of the Jews, the plague was caused a rat flea that carried the infection and bit the people.
The phrase is used to day to accuse people of challenging the health of the ocean community and the agricultural community. These accusers say that certain groups dump industrial waste and pesticides that challenge the health of the life of the agricultural and oceanic community. And maybe they do, but I say to you that my posting here is not polluting or dumping waste here. What I am posting could bring those seeking to have the liberty restored to them, and be made free from the shackles of addiction and depression, and to those that want a new life so that they can sing a new song, but have their liberty of knowing from me taken away from them when I am prohibited here from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And those prohibitions to me here can stop the liberty of those that see death knocking on their door, death from suicide, death from serotonin syndrome, death from heart failure, death from kidney failure, death from liver failure and death from blood disease and the combining of mind-altering drugs that are promoted here. I do not have the liberty to post here what I need to have those people in bondage to the drugs delivered from captivity that want a new life, free from being scared that the drugs will kill them. And I will continue to try to have the Light that is not allowed to be turned on here at least be known to readers that I know of a Light that could give one the liberty to be led out of the darkness of depression and addiction. And I will persevere even through the false charge against me of challenging the health of this community. For I will not be moved. I will not accept what is unacceptable. I will fight to the end. For I say to you, give me Liberty or give me death.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:44:06
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2013, at 8:43:16
> > That which does not kill the community makes the community stronger.
>
> not necessarily. it could weaken it and make it more susceptible to death or harm by other means. like disorders of the immune system.
>
> alexandra_kTrue. And that's an interesting analogy, since in some immune disorders the body attacks itself.
> > Yes, you could be seen as challenging the health of this community.
>
> You want to allow the statement in question as acceptable that could harm my reputation by readers seeing me in a flase light as seeing what {could} mean that I am challenging the health of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I m held and induce hostile or disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
>
> You say that you will abide by your TOS and respond to notifications but you make an exception for yourself to make it optional to you to respond to my requests or not, which is a generally accepted meaning of discrimination which you agree is an abuse of power.
>
> Lou Pilder1. Yes, others could see you in a negative light. They might not feel up for a challenge. They might be looking for a refuge. They, like Phillipa, might worry that the community might be weakened or die.
And one part of the community might end up attacking another part of the community.
2. What I hear you saying is that you'd like others to see you in a positive light. And also that how they see you is up to me. Whether I suppress their responses, whether I respond to your requests, etc. I imagine that could feel like a powerless, dependent position to be in.
--
I left out part of that quote before. More complete would be:
Now, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent communities? Whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2013, at 13:25:46
In reply to Re: challenges, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:44:06
> I think Babble is, or at least could be, a most excellent community. Anybody else?
Psycho-Babble has been excellent, may currently be excellent, and could be excellent again if it is not currently.
I consider Psycho-Babble and the people who post and lurk there valuable enough to continue to participate.
- Scott
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.