![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 92 to 116 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
>>I am not hypervigilant.
Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
> >>I am not hypervigilant.
>
> Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
>
> I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.10,
You wrote, [...are you introspective...].
I am unsure as to if what you have posted here is relevant to this discussion. If it is, what is the relevance?
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on October 5, 2013, at 13:04:22
In reply to Lou's reply-relvnz » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
Never mind, Lou. If you are asking me that, I don't think *my* further explanation would help.
IOW, your question may answer my question.
Anyway, glad to see you and Dr. Bob having a discussion.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
> But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
Yes, and yes.
> The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
--
> That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
--
> Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
Lou Pilder
To see this
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 20:18:33
In reply to Lou's reply- LDS-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
> > > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
> >
> > Yes, and yes.
> >
> > > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
> >
> > What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> >
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > --
> >
> > > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> >
> > > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> > >
> > > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
> >
> > That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
> >
> > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
> Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
> Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
> You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
> Lou Pilder
> To see this
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]Now the statement in #5 says that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is to have an agenda not centered in Christ.
If that is allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive, then all religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ (redacted by respondent).
I would like reads to see this: To see this, pull up Google and type in:
[The On Tr Church, Boyd K. Packer]
You will see his pic also in the url there is {general-conference}
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 7:19:41
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
> 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.
Toph,
You wrote,[...your suggestion that you have a better idea...].
I would like to have discussion with you concerning this, but I would need to know where that came from. If you could post a link to where I stated something that says that, then I could continue here...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 8:17:25
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You have posted a statement that could lead readers to think that I am the subject person since you did not specify a particular person which is generally accepted to be the kind of statement that could cause harm to any of the people what readers could think could be the ones in the category that you said. You used that these people could be hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. You may have had someone else in mind and if so you could have specified that person.
I feel humiliated because I think that some readers could think that it is me as your subject person that you use, hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive as descriptions of these people in question, of which I am one of those, and could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child and that they are self-destructive, irritable and hypervigilant. I see that your remarks here about victims or children or grandchildren of those, or others that had some relationship to them, leads me to feel humiliated and is a false statement about me because I could be seen as a subject person in what you wrote about these people and I am not hypervigilant, irritable or self-destructive. Those types of labels IMHO could induce hostile, disagreeable, and disparaging feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held which harms my reputation for it is a false statement against my character. I want that you remove the entire statement that you wrote that could be seen as me being the subject person, now.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 9:20:59
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- owebhulschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
> Lou you and I have also emailed and you are always coherent and usually have a specific request for me to post a reply to a post of yours. But is it possible I have to wonder if you could brain wash me into being Anti Semetic with you constant it seems posting. Is it me or could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion? I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...is it possible..that you could brain wash me into being Anti Semitic with you(r) constant..posting...could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion?...as a child someone said or did something to you...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by what you posted about me here. Be advised that what you have written about me here could IMHO induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. And much worse, I feel humiliated when I read what you have posted about me here for your statement about brain washing you into being anti-Semitic because I post here in your opinion constant.
Be advised, Phillipa, that I will not rest until ALL statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings are purged from these boards here. And I will continue in that endeavor as a poster here like everyone else by abiding by the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung. It took me years to get one of these addressed and it may take a constant attempting to have Mr. Hsiung respond to my years of outstanding notifications/requests. I am doing this and will continue to do this and if I am not able I will have an assignee to take my place and take this to its logical conclusion. If that is something that could cause you to be anti-Semitic, be advised that statements that could put down those of other faiths are not conducive to the civic harmony or welfare of this community, and even if they are allowed to stand for Mr Hsiung's purposes, those purposes of his will in no wise ever override my purpose to have the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings purged. For as one match could start a forest fire, the fire of hate can spread even if Mr Hsiung has that he will allow these type of statements to stand because he will benefit, or the community will benefit, by using that kind of statement to have better rules which I guess will be good for this community as a whole. That argument is centuries old and has been used to justify genocide, slavery, discrimination, infanticide, segregation and more. If Mr. Hsiung wants better rules he could do so without allowing what could put down or accuse another that could cause harm that could be forever more.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 6, 2013, at 20:16:05
In reply to Lou's reply- gauxphynd » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 9:20:59
Is life one big debate to you? A to me simple statements seems to be blown out of proportion. I feel not like answering you. And I will not feel like answering it either tomorrow the next day or the day after. After awhile we will be so old that we won't know how to access a computer if they still exist then. But who knows what the future holds? I sure don't do you? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
In reply to Lou's reply-dhephm-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 8:17:25
> > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 3:18:00
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
> > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You have posted what readers could think is about me as a subject person where you use [...self-destructive, irritable and hypervigilant] as descriptions which are derogatory descriptions to me as a person. I am not hypervigilant or irritable or self-destructive. Those terms against me could stigmatize me. Those terms against me could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
In regards to your use of hypervigilant, I am abiding by the prohibitions made to me here by you and understand your TOS that states:
[...do not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused...] and,[...do not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...] and,[...members are to be civil at all times...], and[...if it is not civil, don't post it...] and,[...please trust me in that I am doing what I think will be good for this community as a whole...].
But even if you in your thinking by allowing statements that could put down those of other faiths will be good for this community as a whole, that does not annul the fact that by you using these derogatory terms toward people that I could be one of, that harm could come to my reputation and character by readers seeing me portrayed as you describe as being hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. Those could be clinical terms against a person. I am not trying to harm myself and I am only trying to purge statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and purge statements that are insults to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as the post that can be seen here as civil and supportive since it is allowed to stand. I fail to see how that post being allowed to stand could be good for this community as a whole unless this community wants that to be promulgated as civil and supportive. But be it as it may be, the description of people in the post here of being hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive, IMHO could bring psychological/emotional harm to those that could think that they are in the category of people that you use those terms about them. So this is not a one-person issue and those terms that you use could be harmful to many people reading here that are Jews and remember. We will never forget. We will not allow you to use these terms against us as hypervigilant, irritable and self-destructive. I may be harmed by these terms, but I am not going to destruct myself over this. Instead, I will continue to attempt that you purge all of the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and other statements that could put down those of other faiths, for as long as they are allowed to stand, the fire of hate is still burning.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on October 7, 2013, at 6:54:35
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
I agree.
The first battle against the stigma residual in society regarding mental illness can begin with the mentally ill releasing themselves of the stigma residual within themselves.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 7, 2013, at 7:01:29
In reply to Lou's reply-nvrfrget » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 3:18:00
You said:
"I am not hypervigilant or irritable or self-destructive."
- Scott
Posted by Homelycygnet on October 7, 2013, at 7:58:13
In reply to Re: trauma and character, posted by Dr. Bob on October 7, 2013, at 1:52:42
I think this is inappropriate on your part. This slur by association tends to invalidate other people's experience by suggesting that it is caused by an illness or trauma. Would it be correct to interpret your overcontrolling and insensitive treatment of people here as resulting from PTSD because presumably your ancestors were raped in Nanking or worked to death on a railroad? I don't think so. Knock it off Bob.
> > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
>
> Bob
Posted by Homelycygnet on October 7, 2013, at 9:54:09
In reply to ethnic stereotyping » Dr. Bob, posted by Homelycygnet on October 7, 2013, at 7:58:13
I wanted to clarify that by slur by association I was referring to inserting posts about a mental illness (PTSD) into the thread about Lou's complaints. I think it might put him in a false light in the same manner as putting a photograph of someone next to a description of some illness or activity might damage his reputation without directly accusing him. I believe in defamation cases this is referred to as a false light claim.
> I think this is inappropriate on your part. This slur by association tends to invalidate other people's experience by suggesting that it is caused by an illness or trauma. Would it be correct to interpret your overcontrolling and insensitive treatment of people here as resulting from PTSD because presumably your ancestors were raped in Nanking or worked to death on a railroad? I don't think so. Knock it off Bob.
>
>
>
> > > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> > >
> > > descriptions of these people in question ... could be thought to be stereotyping Jews that either directly or indirectly (redacted by respondent) as a child ... it is a false statement against my character.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that that happened to all people who were traumatized indirectly. And I don't know why it would happen to some people and not others. I don't think it's even understood why some people who are traumatized directly get PTSD and others don't.
> >
> > I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see having been traumatized (directly or indirectly), or suffering the aftereffects, as a statement against someone's character.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2013, at 16:39:44
In reply to Lou's reply-nvrfrget » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 3:18:00
I don't have much exposure to Jewish culture. There was one Jewish kid at high school. He was just Shawn. Who was (oddly) passionate about Opera. Who would walk around the school practicing Paverotti. I do believe... That as a grown up... He got to stand in for him once. Anyway, he was just Shawn. There wasn't enough of a minority for him to get to be stereotyped as part of a minority. It is only now in hindsight that I realize he was Jewish. I never connected it with the Holocaust, even, though we learned about that when I was, like 11. 'Everybody loves Raymond'... 'The nanny'. I still don't really get it.
Apparently we have the Jewish community to thank for psychoanalysis. Other things too, of course, but psychoanalysis. I've been finding stuff on trauma of a culture because of events in the cultural past... Dr Bob certainly isn't the first to suggest it... Most of self-psychology these days seems very much part of current Jewish culture / devoted to Jewish concerns...
Lou...
I sometimes am self-destrictive. Irritable. Hypervigilant. If I actually am in the middle of being any of these I would probably sooner chew your face off than admit to it. Like how when I'm irritable that my period is due I simply cannot see that it is until my period actually comes and the mood lifts.
Um... Does that make you think less of me?
Posted by Willful on October 7, 2013, at 17:31:56
In reply to false light claims, posted by Homelycygnet on October 7, 2013, at 9:54:09
I thought Bob's comments were meant to ameliorate judgmental responses that people might have. It attempted to draw attention to the vulnerability or difficulty that might lead led someone to respond very defensively to others, or to misapprehend the harm that even critical or unreceptive responses might do.
I definitely hope that no slur is attached to a trauma survivor's being hypervigilant, irritable, or having been humiliated. In fact, those would be mild responses I think-- entirely understandable and sympathetic. It's not defamatory to try to suggest that if one does find someone's behavior off-putting, that perhaps, if you know something about their personal history-- you may come to be more aware of some trauma or other difficulty that has led to this. And this may cause you to be more mindful that while it may bother you, it is not something to be quick to criticize or blame.
I don't think the analogy to a type of defamation is warranted, because there isn't anything defamatory about what was said. Maybe some people might not like it-- but others might find it lightens their experience of their own vulnerabilities== and it could even be helpful to suggest that their responses might be understandable and sympathetic.
We all need to have a little perspective on our limitations-- I'm sure we've all had lapses here-- when we did not act compassionately or were not constructive, but acted impulsively out of frustration or anxiety.
Also ethnic stereotyping doesn't really seem germaine-- because it has been reported that some descendants of holocaust survivors-- and survivors of other genocidal acts-- also struggle with the experiences that their parents and grandparents have had-- and that societies have a tremendous burden in assimilating the long=-term consequences of such outbursts of mass violence of one group against another. This doesn't just apply to the Jewish experience but those of survivors of Nanking, Rwanda, etc-- although perhaps in Western society we're most familiar with the example of WW 2.
I certainly could have more calm perspective in responding to situations here-- and perhaps Bob's intention was to promote that sort of rethinking.
Posted by SLS on October 7, 2013, at 18:55:27
In reply to Re: false light claims, posted by Willful on October 7, 2013, at 17:31:56
Very nice.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2013, at 20:54:22
In reply to Lou's reply- ownleigh-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 20:18:33
> > > > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
> > >
> > > Yes, and yes.
> > >
> > > > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
> > >
> > > What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> > >
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> > >
> > > > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> > > >
> > > > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
> > >
> > > That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > > > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
> > >
> > > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
> > Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
> > Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
> > You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
> > Lou Pilder
> > To see this
> > A. Pull up Google
> > B. Type in:
> > [Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]
>
> Now the statement in #5 says that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is to have an agenda not centered in Christ.
> If that is allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive, then all religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ (redacted by respondent).
> I would like reads to see this: To see this, pull up Google and type in:
> [The On Tr Church, Boyd K. Packer]
> You will see his pic also in the url there is {general-conference}
> LouMr Hsiung,
You asked if something was added to #5 like {or other scriptures} as to what if.
The statement in #5 is what it is. The statement in #7 is about religions that do not align their scriptures and are changing and make things up as they go along which is another of {the top ten worst reasons} which does not annul what #5 purports about Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ.
Lou Pilder
Posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2013, at 21:03:32
In reply to Re: false light claims, posted by Willful on October 7, 2013, at 17:31:56
I agree with SLS. I thought Wilfull's post was very nice.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 10:43:54
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You now say that posts that could accuse or put down others will be allowed to stand if they could be discussed so that better rules could come out of the discussion.
The accusations and ridicule (put downs) toward a person posted here could do harm to the recipient of those accusations and ridicule even if you benefit by a discussion that could result in an improved rule for you.
When I came here, I saw your TOS that stated not to post anything that could accuse or put down another and to not post what could put down those of other faiths. There was also posted by you that you understood that accusations and ridicule were posted against a person and said that you were sorry if the recipient of those accusations or ridicule were hurt, for accusations and put downs could cause hurt to the recipient of them.
Now since you know that accusations and ridicule directed toward a person could cause harm, I have the following concerns. You see, I do not want to let you have hurt come to others here by you allowing accusations and ridicule posted to them even if you benefit by it in your rules being improved by them being hurt.
Now the discussion here concerns statements that could in particular, but not limited to, insult Jews and Islamic people and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, as that the poster states that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion are if they have an agenda not centered in Christ. That means that the only religion that is not in that category are religions that have their agendas centered in Christ.
There is a rule here to not post what could put down those of other faiths and when I came here I took you at your word when I read that.
I have the following want for information and if you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you.
A. Do you think that there is the potential for Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have their religion with an agenda not centered in Christ could feel put down when they read the post in question that has #5 that states that the top ten worst reasons for a religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ?
B. If not, what is your rational for thinking that?
C. Would you be willing to address the World Jewish Congress and explain why your rules have not been applied to that post, unless you think that Jews and others could not feel put down whe they read it, like others that could put down those of other faiths where the post was sanctioned in the thread?
D. Would you be willing to face an Islamic court and defend yourself that you have not posted in the thread of that post a sanction like other posts that put down those of other faiths? If so, what would your defense be?
E. You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. If a Jewish or Islamic child or another child that is of a religion that does not have their agenda centered in Christ, is bullied because they are Jews or Islamic or others and the bullies said that they saw the post in question on "Dr. Bob's" and taunted and mocked and ridiculed the children that they were Jews or Islamic, and that they themselves were Christians, and that Jews and Islamic people are in a catagory of religions that are of the "worst" because their agenda is not centered in Christ, would you take responsibility for the injuries or deaths that could come to those children if the bullies cited your site and that post as any part of their bullying?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Homelycygnet on October 8, 2013, at 11:36:15
In reply to Re: false light claims, posted by Willful on October 7, 2013, at 17:31:56
> I thought Bob's comments were meant to ameliorate judgmental responses that people might have.
I don't have any reason to believe that wasn't his purpose. It was his method that troubled me.
>It attempted to draw attention to the vulnerability or difficulty that might lead led someone to respond very defensively to others, or to misapprehend the harm that even critical or unreceptive responses might do.>
> I definitely hope that no slur is attached to a trauma survivor's being hypervigilant, irritable, or having been humiliated. In fact, those would be mild responses I think-- entirely understandable and sympathetic.No of course not. The slur would be that the persons opinions or behaviour was caused by trauma and not by the grievances which were based in reality. It distracts from or discounts the reasons he attributes his behaviour to. The suggestion that Lou in fact exhibits these behaviours is also a slur not based in fact.
>It's not defamatory to try to suggest that if one does find someone's behavior off-putting, that perhaps, if you know something about their personal history-- you may come to be more aware of some trauma or other difficulty that has led to this. And this may cause you to be more mindful that while it may bother you, it is not something to be quick to criticize or blame.
No of course not. A general statement like that is not what is in question though.
>
> I don't think the analogy to a type of defamation is warranted, because there isn't anything defamatory about what was said. Maybe some people might not like it-- but others might find it lightens their experience of their own vulnerabilities== and it could even be helpful to suggest that their responses might be understandable and sympathetic.You might be right. I looked back and I am not sure he actually suggested PTSD as much as described symptoms. I am not a lawyer. I don't know. But I think Bob knew Lou well enough to anticipate that it would hurt him.
>
> We all need to have a little perspective on our limitations-- I'm sure we've all had lapses here-- when we did not act compassionately or were not constructive, but acted impulsively out of frustration or anxiety.
>
> Also ethnic stereotyping doesn't really seem germaine-- because it has been reported that some descendants of holocaust survivors-- and survivors of other genocidal acts-- also struggle with the experiences that their parents and grandparents have had-- and that societies have a tremendous burden in assimilating the long=-term consequences of such outbursts of mass violence of one group against another. This doesn't just apply to the Jewish experience but those of survivors of Nanking, Rwanda, etc-- although perhaps in Western society we're most familiar with the example of WW 2.
I don't agree. Bob was making assumptions directly based on Lou's being Jewish.
>
> I certainly could have more calm perspective in responding to situations here-- and perhaps Bob's intention was to promote that sort of rethinking.
I wish you success in that. I hope I didn't distract from Lou's long overdue discussion with Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2013, at 16:23:51
In reply to Re: false light claims » Willful, posted by Homelycygnet on October 8, 2013, at 11:36:15
> We will never forget. ... I may be harmed by these terms, but I am not going to destruct myself over this.
Some traumas can't be forgotten.
I regret that I harmed you by using those terms. I'm glad you're not going to self-destruct. (I didn't think you would. I've seen that you're resilient.)
> When I came here, I saw your TOS that stated not to post anything that could accuse or put down another and to not post what could put down those of other faiths. There was also posted by you that you understood that accusations and ridicule were posted against a person and said that you were sorry if the recipient of those accusations or ridicule were hurt, for accusations and put downs could cause hurt to the recipient of them.
I'm also sorry if I misled you. If you'd like to minimize the risk of feeling hurt, I suggest you avoid Admin.
> A. Do you think that there is the potential for Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have their religion with an agenda not centered in Christ could feel put down when they read the post in question that has #5 that states that the top ten worst reasons for a religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ?
Yes.
> C. Would you be willing to address the World Jewish Congress and explain why your rules have not been applied to that post
Sure, would they be interested in Babble?
> D. Would you be willing to face an Islamic court and defend yourself that you have not posted in the thread of that post a sanction like other posts that put down those of other faiths?
No.
> E. You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. If a Jewish or Islamic child or another child that is of a religion that does not have their agenda centered in Christ, is bullied because they are Jews or Islamic or others and the bullies said that they saw the post in question on "Dr. Bob's" and taunted and mocked and ridiculed the children that they were Jews or Islamic, and that they themselves were Christians, and that Jews and Islamic people are in a catagory of religions that are of the "worst" because their agenda is not centered in Christ, would you take responsibility for the injuries or deaths that could come to those children if the bullies cited your site and that post as any part of their bullying?
>
> Lou PilderNo. I'd see those who injured or killed the children as responsible. But a jury could disagree.
--
> Would it be correct to interpret your overcontrolling and insensitive treatment of people here as resulting from PTSD because presumably your ancestors were raped in Nanking or worked to death on a railroad?
Maybe it would. Would that ameliorate your judgmental responses?
> The slur would be that the persons opinions or behaviour was caused by trauma and not by the grievances which were based in reality.
>
> I think Bob knew Lou well enough to anticipate that it would hurt him.
>
> HomelycygnetI didn't mean to imply that Lou's grievances have no basis in reality. I've seen some bases, and addressed them.
I regret that I hurt Lou. But it's possible that judgmental responses hurt him, too, and if they're ameliorated, he might feel less hurt overall.
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 8, 2013, at 17:34:20
In reply to Lou's reply- kneadihnphoe » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 7:19:41
> Toph,
> You wrote,[...your suggestion that you have a better idea...].
> I would like to have discussion with you concerning this, but I would need to know where that came from. If you could post a link to where I stated something that says that, then I could continue here...
> LouIt is my impression that you have proposed here multiple times that psychotropic medications are lethally dangerous and that you have a religious experience and beliefs that will effectively alleviate mental health symptoms.
My question to you is Lou, do you think that you have an alternative intervention to lithium that would relieve me of my manic and depressive symptoms better than lithium does? A simple yes or no would be helpful.
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.