![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 14:23:28
> legitimize insulting Judaism
I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
Tough call.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2013, at 10:58:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 22, 2013, at 10:38:44
> > legitimize insulting Judaism
>
> I am not insulted. I simply disagree. I do not agree with one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
>
> The Faith board is a strange combination of legitimizing tolerance and intolerance. As I see it, the board tolerates differences, but is intolerant of intolerance.
>
> Tough call.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote that you are not insulted, but disagree.
People reading what is in question can both disagree and be insulted or feel insulted. What is an insult is what it is regardless if one disagrees with what the insult purports.
In this case, the agenda of Judaism is in the "worst", which is the superlative of "bad" . It is the most bad, the worst as the poster writes. That is acceptable here according to Mr Hsiung. It is not acceptable here to me, for I feel insulted when I read the statement in question. As a Jew, we think life takes precedence and that the agenda of Judaism is to bring life to the world forevermore. If that is the worst agenda, then (redacted b respondent).
To Life,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gauxahd » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2013, at 15:55:39
> the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 23, 2013, at 9:28:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 23:11:20
> > the statement shows contempt for Judaism, Islam and the other faiths that foster their agenda not centered in Christ, which is hatred toward those faiths.
>
> I see that #5 could be seen that way, but I didn't see #7 that way.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You have allowed what you admit could be seen as you wrote above.
The poster uses the word ,"worst". This can be thought by readers as that there is no other that is that bad. for insyance, how many toimes have you heard:
"That was the worst chili I have ever eaten"
"She was the worst teacher that I ever had"
"That team is the worst team in their division"
"He was the worst president of all"
" The Godzilla movies were the worst I have ever seen."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnZ6Ktjynh0
You see, readers can think from what is plainly visible as it is. I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 17:02:57
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilderdiscussion-plainlyviz, posted by Lou Pilder on September 23, 2013, at 9:28:46
> I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
I've posted that here. How about moving on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2013, at 20:06:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 17:02:57
> > I am asking you to go to that thread and post there that you think that the statement in question is acceptable to you even though it is not supportive. And then state your rationale for you allowing it to stand. Then I will post my response there to you.
>
> I've posted that here. How about moving on to another statement?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I will need to prepare a reply to you for what you have posted to me. It could be so much easier for everyone IMO if you posted what I had requested in the thread where it is posted. That way, others that read the post in it's thread where it is posted could see your rationale for why you say that support takes precedence and that you are saying that it is acceptable to post what you say is not supportive. For readers could think that it is supportive as it can be seen without your explanation posted there. I think that could go a long way in preventing deaths and/or injuries that IMHO could arise by people seeing the statement in question as it can be seen that you have agreed here that the statement could be seen the way that I have posted here.
But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
Let us discuss if the post is supportive or acceptable without being supportive and your rationale for such. I also would like for you to declare if you are designating the post as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. Here is the link to the post. The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:51:21
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-bdlyhrm » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2013, at 20:06:44
> But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
Thanks for agreeing to move on.
> The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.htmlI didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm. And I thought he was making a point: if being given a new face could be considered bodily harm, being given a new mind could be considered a psychological harm.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 7:01:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:51:21
> > But be it as it may be, you would like another post to discuss.
>
> Thanks for agreeing to move on.
>
> > The post could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm to me and I woul like to know if you consider that either supportive or acceptable or conducive to the harmony and welfare of the community or a combination of those or something else.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
>
> I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm. And I thought he was making a point: if being given a new face could be considered bodily harm, being given a new mind could be considered a psychological harm.
>
> BobMr suing,
You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise. For the statement reads:
[...if we met, {I would give} you a new face...].
This is not an ambiguous phrase, for there is used that the author {would give me} a new face. This is action of violence as a plausible interpretation of the statement and can reasonably be interpreted as it can be seen by a reasonable person. I am the subject person and the action toward me is unambiguous. A new face could be interpreted as the author beating me in the face so that my face becomes unrecognizable.
But more than that, combined with that you also say that being given a new mind could be considered psychological harm.
That IMHO could put me in a false light and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against me and decrease the confidence an respect and regard toward me. This is because the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. What I have been writing about here is that I know of two way for one to overcome addiction and depression. One by human achievement and the other by divine accomplishment. Those that want to go the way of human achievement by taking mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor to overcome depression/addiction have this forum to use in that endeavor. I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit which leads them out of the darkness of depression and death into a marvelous light, for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way. A Christiandom concept o this way is called the baptism of desire.
Readers could think that the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and acceptable as it stands now. So there could be more postings of the same thing or what could even be analogous to what the statement purports. I feel by you allowing this, that it could encourage hatred toward me and give people the idea in their minds that one could justfy what is posted as that it will be good for this community as a whole, for you say for people to trust you in what you do here. I think that if people harbor any such notion in their minds to think of harming someone, that hate could be induced in them and that could thwart their efforts to overcome depression and addiction. I am here to save lives and to prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. And I know that hate induced into someone can cause depression which can lead to addiction from taking mind-altering drugs.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 17:20:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:59:02
> > > 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.
> >
> > You and your deputies can steer people in to how they see me, is correct. ... So when you leave statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feeling to be seen as acceptable and/or supportive, just remember that Jewish children could be the victims of antisemitic violence from those that read those statements allowed to stand here, and seek out a Jew to murder.
> >
> > I would like for you to examine the following and after each one designate as to if the statement in question is either supportive or just acceptable to be posted here, but not supportive, or something else.
>
> What I hear you saying now is that it's not just up to me how others see you, but also whether they murder you (or other Jews). That sounds like a vulnerable, as well as a powerless and dependent, position to be in.
>
> Of course, Jews have in the past been murdered because they were Jewish. I'm reminded of how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward.
>
> I might be able to examine those statements one at a time. Where would you like to start? Help me out by specifying the statement in question as well as supplying a link. Thanks,
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
In regards to our discussion as responding one at a time to my concerns in posts, I would like for you to declare as to if you are designating the following to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, or acceptable, or supportive or a combination of those or something else. If you declare that it will be good for this community as a whole for any of those, I would also like for you to state your rationale for such.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 17:57:28
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pazprk » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 17:20:59
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
>
> You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
> the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
--
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 18:52:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 17:57:28
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
> >
> > You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.
>
> I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
>
> > the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
>
> That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
>
> Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
>
> --
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
>
> That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
>
> BobMr Hsiung, You wrote,[...I didn't do anything...].
Now readers could think that what I consider to be having the potential to induce hate that the statement could induce is considered to be acceptable and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. This is all because you have posted for readers to trust you in what you do here and that you do not wait to put out a fire for one match could start a forest fire.
I am asking you to hose down the fire there that has the potential IMHO to arouse anti-Semitic feelings.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 19:04:06
In reply to Lou's reply-ugotdatballnowgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 18:52:51
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048908.html
> > >
> > > You wrote that you did not consider the statement in question a threat of bodily harm. I think that the context and structure of the statement indicates otherwise.
> >
> > I do accept that you could've feel threatened even though I didn't consider it a threat of bodily harm.
> >
> > > the author says that what I wrote here is that the author needs a new mind, which s not what I wrote at all. ... I am prevented from posting here what I need for readers to know to overcome addiction/depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me due to your prohibitions posted to me here and I am abiding by those prohibitions to me. In Judaism, the scriptures used by the Jews show how one could have a new heart and a new spirit ... for those that want to do so by going that way, and there is no obligation from me here to do so unless one desires to go that way.
> >
> > That's a good point. It would've been more parallel if he'd said he'd offer you a new face.
> >
> > Thanks for abiding by my prohibitions.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048569.html
> >
> > That's clearly uncivil. I don't remember why I didn't do anything about it at the time.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung, You wrote,[...I didn't do anything...].
> Now readers could think that what I consider to be having the potential to induce hate that the statement could induce is considered to be acceptable and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. This is all because you have posted for readers to trust you in what you do here and that you do not wait to put out a fire for one match could start a forest fire.
> I am asking you to hose down the fire there that has the potential IMHO to arouse anti-Semitic feelings.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
Now here is another. Since you have said that posts can be acceptable and not be supportive, readers could not know the difference as to if the statement in question is or is not supportive or just acceptable by you to post, even if it s not supportive and readers could know that you have posted that support takes precedence.
So I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
In reply to Lou's reply-Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozdur, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 19:04:06
> Now here is another.
> I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.htmlThat one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
> > Now here is another.
> > I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
>
> That one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I had requested that you state as to if the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, or supportive, or acceptable or a combination of those or something else.
Your answer is that [...That one I'd consider more OK than not...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly.
You are wanting your answer to mean as acceptable to post, and:
A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
B. That the statement in question is supportive, and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
C. The statement in question is supportive, but not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
D. The statement in question is not supportive, nor conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
E. none of the above.
F. A combination f the above which are:
G. All of the above
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-svellsup » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
> A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
> > A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
>
> because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
>
> Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that [...discussions of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community...]. A policy is what guides others in relation to what they post so that they can be within the guidelines of the [policy when they post in the future.
I would agree that to discuss the *policy* here is one thing, and to bring me up as suggesting that they think that I should be ostracized if I continue in posting what I have been posting, is another thing.
And I have the following question so that if the are answered, I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean here and respond accordingly.
A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
Lou Pilder
>
>
>
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
The post I wrote was intended to be a figure of speech reflecting my anger and frustration with your suggestion that you have a better idea of how I should treat my bipolar disorder than I do. Nonetheless, the way I expressed it was inappropriate and probably should have been sanctioned. I'm sorry Lou. It would be nice also if you felt some remorse for provoking me, but that's OK if you can't.
Posted by 10derheart on September 30, 2013, at 18:18:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
What a decent and nice post, Toph. I am not surprised, of course.
If I were British and of another era, I would say I always think of you as a good egg :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 1:32:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
> A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2013, at 21:01:56
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung and readers,
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Can all posters post what is analogous that is in question here? (...I think Lou...should be...)
B. If so, and you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
C. Why is the statement in question,{I think Lou should be) a topic for discussion at all, if my reputation could be harmed and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings and opinions against me?
D. What benefit comes to this community by allowing that?
E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
G. There is the potential IMHO for a subset of readers to think when they read the post in question about me here that the posting behaviors by me are those that are of the nature of my efforts here to get the posts that I think could arouse, in particular but not limited to, anti-Semitic feelings, and could lead Jews to feel put down and/or accused, to be addressed by you along with the years of outstanding requests/notification from me to you be acted on.
Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
The potential of the post being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here, which could encourage others to post the same type of statements about me, I can see no benefit coming to me from that being allowed to continue at all. Who are the subset of people, if any, that you think will benefit by seeing the post about me as acceptable to be posted here which has the potential IMO to inflict psychological and emotional harm to me?
Lou Pilder
Posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
In reply to Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2013, at 4:13:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> I believe that you could revitalize the site
If a single person can revitalize the site, can a single person devitalize it?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 5:35:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)Pat,
You wrote,[...I have never seen a post that would be against your heritage or religion...]
Let us look at this post that Mr Hsiung says is OK to post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Now the post says that in the top 10 worst reason for organized religion as in #5 in the second list in the post, is a religion that fosters an agenda not centered in Christ.
Now That would include Judaism. And what could be thought here is that this community, by accepting that statement as acceptable to post here by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, Judaism, which includes me as a Jew, is a religion that is in the worst, and that those religions centered in Christ are not in the category of worst. So the thinking could be when readers see that post, that {only} the religion of Christiandom is exempt from being in the category of the "worst".
Now the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious agenda centered in Christ, and Buddhists and all other religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, to feel insulted when they read it, and that this community allows that statement to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, for the statement stands without sanction. And Mr. Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out a fire here for one match could start a forest fire.
The question by you is that you have never seen a post here that is against Judaism. The post in question states that there are religions that are the worst, and Judaism is included. But it is much more than that. The insult that relegates Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious ageda centered in Christ, and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, can be seen to be divided by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies that have allowed this statement for years, into two groups of members here. One group contains all those that have their religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ ,and the other group that are Christians. The community leader, Mr Hsiung, says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. So by allowing the statement to be seen s supportive, there is the potential for readers to think that Jews are to be considered by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, to be in the worst of religions, which includes this Jew here. By allowing the statement in question, all Jews an be seen here as in the worst religion. And all Islamic people also. And all Hindu people also. And all native Americans also that do not have their religion centered in Christ. And all people that are not members of Christiandom, for if they did have their agenda centered in Christ, they would be members of Christiandom.
The statement seen as supportive here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence of me as a Jew here and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against Jews and me as a Jew here. This could play out in using me as a scapegoat and I could become a victim of anti-Semitic violence as the historical record shows.
Lou
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.