![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 795. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 18:41:01
In reply to Re: judgmental responses, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2013, at 16:23:51
> > 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 Pilder
>
> No. 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.
> >
> > Homelycygnet
>
> I 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.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
The post in question is what in our discussion. You asked if the post was modified by adding {or other scriptures}, something as to {what if}.
If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
This leaves the post to stand as it is. But by you asking what if there was a modification to the post, that to me could mean that you could think that as the post stands, it could lead those of other faiths to feel put down when they read it. In fact those of Judaism and Islam and others that have their religious agenda not centered in Christ could see the post as an insult to their God.
The post is not on the administrative board. When I read your rules to not post anything that could putdown those of other faiths, I took you at your word. And you say that one match could start a forest fire. The match could start a fire on whatever board it is on. The post in question could also, for it says what it says. I can not see a person that is a Jew or Islamic or Hindu or any other religion that does not have their agenda centered in Christ, to be categorized as depicted here in that post. Those seeing it could think that it is supportive, for you say that support takes precedence. Supportive of what?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 18:58:00
In reply to Re: judgmental responses, posted by Dr. Bob on October 8, 2013, at 16:23:51
> > 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 Pilder
>
> No. 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.
> >
> > Homelycygnet
>
> I 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.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You say that I could be hurt if I post on this board. This is the way that you prescribe to members that want to have you address posts that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. You also say to se the notification system, but there are years of outstanding notifications from me.
And year after year as long as those posts that could put down, in particular but not limited to Jews, are left to stand, there are others besides me that could be hurt.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 19:59:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- kneadihnphoe, posted by Toph on October 8, 2013, at 17:34:20
> > 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
>
> It 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.
>
> Toph,
Yes.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 4:14:21
In reply to Lou's response-forstphyr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 18:58:00
> > > 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 Pilder
> >
> > No. 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.
> > >
> > > Homelycygnet
> >
> > I 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
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You say that I could be hurt if I post on this board. This is the way that you prescribe to members that want to have you address posts that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. You also say to se the notification system, but there are years of outstanding notifications from me.
> And year after year as long as those posts that could put down, in particular but not limited to Jews, are left to stand, there are others besides me that could be hurt.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
You say that there is a basis for reality in my grievances here, but those grievances are not specified. My concern is in our discussion now concerning the statement that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is if the religion had their agenda not centered in Christ. You do say that Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have their religion with an agenda not centered in Christ could feel put down, and even insulted IMHO, when they read the statement in question. I read your rule here as to not post what could put down those of other faiths. And the statement is not on the administrative board and stands today.
I have the following requests and if you post answers to them, then I think that readers could have a better understanding of this ongoing situation.
A. You say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and ask readers to try to trust you in that. What good will come to this community by leaving the statement in question in the manner that when people read it they could think that it is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is if the agenda for those religions is not centered in Christ?
B. Why is that good, if you post a reason for it to be good?
C. Do you agree that the statement could be seen as that the {only} religion that is not in the top ten worst reasons for it to exist, is the religion that has its agenda centered in Christ?
D. In your thinking that one match could start a forest fire, could not the fire of hate, hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and all other faiths that are not centered in Christ, be started from the statement in question?
E. If so, would you agree that the fire is still burning since the statement stands here and that I have a basis for my requests to you here?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 11:56:56
In reply to Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-pstillburning, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 4:14:21
For what it's worth, although I agree that the words are uncivil to non-Christians, I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center. It's not a phrase I particularly like. I think substituting God would be better. But I don't think it's intended to be against non-christians.
Moreover, Mormons are, or are supposed to be, philo-Semitic. I was trained, as Joseph Smith taught, that Jews had their own covenant with God. A covenant that should be respected. I never heard anything remotely anti-semitic in church until I joined a Protestant church. Never. I was taught to respect and admire the Jewish people, who managed to maintain a covenant relationship with God despite dispersal and persecution.
I'm not saying there is no anti-semetism among any Mormon individuals, but they are going against the words of Joseph Smith.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 12:42:08
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-pstillburning, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 11:56:56
> For what it's worth, although I agree that the words are uncivil to non-Christians, I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center. It's not a phrase I particularly like. I think substituting God would be better. But I don't think it's intended to be against non-christians.
>
> Moreover, Mormons are, or are supposed to be, philo-Semitic. I was trained, as Joseph Smith taught, that Jews had their own covenant with God. A covenant that should be respected. I never heard anything remotely anti-semitic in church until I joined a Protestant church. Never. I was taught to respect and admire the Jewish people, who managed to maintain a covenant relationship with God despite dispersal and persecution.
>
> I'm not saying there is no anti-semetism among any Mormon individuals, but they are going against the words of Joseph Smith.Friends,
It is written here,[...Mormons are..philo-Semitic...I never heard anything remotely anti-Semitic...I'm not saying that there is no anti-Semitism among any Mormon individuals, BUT THEY ARE GOING AGAINST THE WORDS OF JOSEPH SMITH (emphasis mine).
Here are the words of the book that the Mormons use and consider it to be scripture from the claimed prophet Joseph Smith that is from Joseph Smith about Jews.
Lou
To see this, I am prevented from posting a link due to the prohibitions to me here from Mr Hsiung. So to see this:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[As Written In Official Mormon Scripture, John D. Stone]
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 13:39:47
In reply to Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 12:42:08
> > For what it's worth, although I agree that the words are uncivil to non-Christians, I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center. It's not a phrase I particularly like. I think substituting God would be better. But I don't think it's intended to be against non-christians.
> >
> > Moreover, Mormons are, or are supposed to be, philo-Semitic. I was trained, as Joseph Smith taught, that Jews had their own covenant with God. A covenant that should be respected. I never heard anything remotely anti-semitic in church until I joined a Protestant church. Never. I was taught to respect and admire the Jewish people, who managed to maintain a covenant relationship with God despite dispersal and persecution.
> >
> > I'm not saying there is no anti-semetism among any Mormon individuals, but they are going against the words of Joseph Smith.
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...Mormons are..philo-Semitic...I never heard anything remotely anti-Semitic...I'm not saying that there is no anti-Semitism among any Mormon individuals, BUT THEY ARE GOING AGAINST THE WORDS OF JOSEPH SMITH (emphasis mine).
> Here are the words of the book that the Mormons use and consider it to be scripture from the claimed prophet Joseph Smith that is from Joseph Smith about Jews.
> Lou
> To see this, I am prevented from posting a link due to the prohibitions to me here from Mr Hsiung. So to see this:
> A. Bring up Google
> B. Type in:
> [As Written In Official Mormon Scripture, John D. Stone]Friends,
It is written here,[...it is generally meant to be a condemnation of Christian churches...].
Now I would like for readers to see the post and see what it is, for it is what it is and says what it says.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Now notice that the title of the second list is:
The top 10 worst reasons FOR ORGANIZED RELIGION (emphasis mine). And #5 in that list states that a religion having their agenda not centered in Christ is in the category of having the worst reason for their existence. The list is for all religions that are ORGANIZED. This includes Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all other organized religions THAT FOSTER ANY AGENDA THAT IS NOT CENTERED IN CHRIST (emphasis mine).
That is what can be seen. That is what readers can think as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. That is what readers could think is supportive. And if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement, and all the other statements here that could arouse hatred toward in particular but not limited to the Jews, then think again my friends, for I'm going to purge them one post at a time, and it won't cost you a dime.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
In reply to Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 12:42:08
Much of the information in that post refers to sections of the Mormon scripture that echo New Testament terminology.
I always marvelled at the used of "the Jews" in the New Testament, given that Jesus and his followers were Jewish. However, it is there, and the Mormon scriptures use it as well.
However, Joseph Smith was philo-semitic. Early Mormons were Zionists. Jews were welcomed in Utah under Brigham Young.
"The Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in 1864 and was the first instance of organized Judaism. Religious services were held in the rented Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. This same year saw the first cemetery, on land deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young. High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) services in 1867 were observed in the Seventies Hall at the invitation of Brigham Young."
Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine
http://www.jewishmag.com/136mag/mormons/mormons.htm
You are looking at one small part of a much larger history of Mormons and Jews. And one, moreover, where the Mormon scriptures were heavily influenced by similar passages in the New Testament. There are antisemitic Mormon individuals, no doubt. But the Mormon church *is* philosemitic, and everything in my personal experience with the Mormon church supports that position.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:52:37
In reply to Lou's response-49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 ahdomoebeel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 13:39:47
On the face of it, that is true.
But I tell you that in all my not limited experience of the phrase, it refers to Christian churches who are not centered in the message of Christ.
It may reflect a certain assumption that in "organized religion" there is no need to specify "organized christian religion".
And of course Mormons are Christians. Of course they believe the best path includes Christ. But church belief clarifies that Jews have an existing covenant relationship with God.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:54:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
I forgot the quotes around the following:
"Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine."
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 14:13:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
> Much of the information in that post refers to sections of the Mormon scripture that echo New Testament terminology.
>
> I always marvelled at the used of "the Jews" in the New Testament, given that Jesus and his followers were Jewish. However, it is there, and the Mormon scriptures use it as well.
>
> However, Joseph Smith was philo-semitic. Early Mormons were Zionists. Jews were welcomed in Utah under Brigham Young.
>
> "The Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in 1864 and was the first instance of organized Judaism. Religious services were held in the rented Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. This same year saw the first cemetery, on land deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young. High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) services in 1867 were observed in the Seventies Hall at the invitation of Brigham Young."
>
> http://ujgs.org/jews.php
>
> Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine
>
> http://www.jewishmag.com/136mag/mormons/mormons.htm
>
>
> You are looking at one small part of a much larger history of Mormons and Jews. And one, moreover, where the Mormon scriptures were heavily influenced by similar passages in the New Testament. There are antisemitic Mormon individuals, no doubt. But the Mormon church *is* philosemitic, and everything in my personal experience with the Mormon church supports that position.Friends,
Here is a discussion forum that I would like for readers to view.
Lou
To see this:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[Recovery from (RfM)discussion forum,128634]
You will see: The ABCs of book of
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 14:24:39
In reply to Lou's response-whtdhypsey, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 14:13:18
Lou, I got into this discussion because I thought it was being incorrectly implied that Mormons considered Judaism an atrocity. I thought that was quite unfair to Mormons. Although I am no longer Mormon, I do not like them being insulted.
I know what Mormons believe, but I accept that you do not believe it. If you google Mormons and Jews, you will see many articles written for a Jewish audience that would disagree with your stance.
"The Book of Mormon even has Jesus presciently condemning anti-Semitism and "replacement theology" - the Christian doctrine that the divine covenant with the Jews was superseded when they rejected him as Messiah. "Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel," the Nazarene tells the Indian-Israelites of America, " 1/8F 3/8or behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.""
"Mormon leaders espoused Zionist sympathies decades before the Jewish national movement was born. In 1841, Joseph Smith sent his "personal apostle" Orson Hyde to Jerusalem, where on the Mount of Olives he beseeched God to "restore the kingdom unto Israel - raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and continue her people a distinct nation and government." Today, Jerusalem's very own Orson Hyde Park sits on the spot of that prophecy, just a few steps from BYU's Jerusalem Center."
You will believe what you wish. But I request that you refrain from stating or implying that the Mormon church is antisemitic. And I ask that Dr. Bob not allow the Mormon church to be miscategorized as antisemitic.
I've provided information on the point. I'm through with this discussion.
Posted by Toph on October 9, 2013, at 14:25:10
In reply to Lou's reply- » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 19:59:45
> > 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.
> >
> > Toph,
> Yes.
> Lou
>Lou, you are intitled to your opinion. Mine is that your beliefs are wrong, insulting and extremely dangerous as far as they apply to me.
End of conversation.
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.