![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 219 to 243 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:39:49
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:53:43
> > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
>
> My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
>
> > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
>
> This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. You wrote here that you would post in that thread something that could show readers that the statement in question puts down, at least Jews, by posting that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. This is all because the statement states that [...Christianity is the {only} religion that...].
That statement precludes Jews, Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions that are not Christian based.
Now I don't claim to be a great reader, but this I see. I see that you will do that {if} I accept your rephrases. As I read that, I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action to the post in question by posting in that thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community because it puts down Jews and others.
If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:44:18
In reply to Lou's reply-diph-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:39:49
> > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
> >
> > My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
> >
> > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> >
> > This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. You wrote here that you would post in that thread something that could show readers that the statement in question puts down, at least Jews, by posting that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. This is all because the statement states that [...Christianity is the {only} religion that...].
> That statement precludes Jews, Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions that are not Christian based.
> Now I don't claim to be a great reader, but this I see. I see that you will do that {if} I accept your rephrases. As I read that, I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action to the post in question by posting in that thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community because it puts down Jews and others.
> If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
> If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In regards to the other post, would like for you and others to read the following in that it could be used in any response to my request to you.
Lou Pilder
To see this:
A. Go to Google.
B. Type in:
[Analysis Danial N. Leeson Money Changers in the Temple ]
Usually first. posted on July 6, 2010
Posted by Willful on October 22, 2013, at 10:35:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:53:43
> > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
>
> My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
>
> > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
>
> This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
>
> Bob
Surely your taking certain actions doesn't depend on whether any other poster to babble "would be happy with" your doing it?Yet your question alone shows ~~visibly~~ as Lou likes to say-- how much you cater to him, and give him special privileges--
This is seemingly because he has make himself so unavoidable and continuous a presence that you've backed further and further into some sort of need simply to satisfy him-- if only he will be quiet and leave you in peace.
Just because one poster simply won't cease and desist assailing you with such an endless and self-reinforcing litany of insistences about certain phrases that are obnoxious to him-- should you literally step into the echo chamber of this distorted universe-- where a few phrases from several years ago are worthy of this relentless energy-? --- phrases that had been laid to rest and would for all intents and purpose not particularly exist-- had Lou not given them a third, fourth and fifth life by citing them over and over again?
Words have a certain life-- and if they don't catch fire with other words and actions, they gradually lose their vitality-- and eventually sputter out-- unless there is someone who blows on the flame, and feeds the fire, so as to keep them alive. Great writers are kept alive by the fire of their readers. Noxious phrases apparently are also subject to being kept alive by those who are compelled to rehearse them, crying out for some revenge.
And honestly--- you give Lou even this privilege of certifying that your unique action in his case is acceptable to him?
But you see-- he won't go away and is not so easy bought off, it appears--- and requires now that you do what you alone consider right-- without it in the least stifling his eternal protest that you have not done enough.
You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
Willful
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:47:36
In reply to Lou's reply--mnychey-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:44:18
By all means, let us here produce a treatise regarding the portrayal of Jews as being moneychangers.
Here's another project for you:
* Jean Jacques Rousseau
I'll see if I can think of any more.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:56:22
In reply to Projects » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:47:36
Was Jean Jacques-Rousseau anti-semitic or pro-semitic?
- Scott-------------------------------------------
"On the whole, Montesquieu favored the Jews and empathized with their sufferings (Judaism is a mother who has given birth to two daughters who have struck her a thousand blows... If you do not want to be Christian, at least be human) he also warned that wherever there is money there are Jews. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a noteworthy exception to the rule and adopted a stand consistently favorable to the Jews."
-------------------------------------------
Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 14:01:45
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 5:19:31
> > > How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
>
> > How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?
>
> That's a good analogy. They would need professional help. It might be supportive to suggest this to the sufferer.
maybe. but maybe not. i think that maybe the idea is that it is possible to support a person without condoning their actions. i'm remembering back to ages ago when people wanted deneb blocked for some of her posts about self harm / suicidal ideation. i remember people thinking then that she was getting special privileges for not (often) being blocked for those kinds of posts. not everyone was supportive for her, that is true. but some people found it in them to be supportive to her sometimes. and it seemed to help her. and help the people who were able to support her.i don't see how this situation is terribly different.
except that i don't really understand lou much of the time so in this case i do what a lot of people seemed to do in the last case... i just stay out of it and don't even read many of the posts.
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 14:45:11
In reply to Re: support » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 14:01:45
> > > > How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
> >
> > > How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?
> >
> > That's a good analogy. They would need professional help. It might be supportive to suggest this to the sufferer.
>
>
> maybe. but maybe not. i think that maybe the idea is that it is possible to support a person without condoning their actions.I don't understand. To refuse to condone the actions of another, what is there left to do?
> i'm remembering back to ages ago when people wanted deneb blocked for some of her posts about self harm / suicidal ideation.
What was the nature of the support she received.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 16:49:41
In reply to Re: support » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 14:45:11
I guess I'm thinking back to how people have supported me even when I was engaged in behaviour they didn't condone (e.g., self harm, angry outbursts, near catatonia). Hell, even other things... How can you support someone when you don't like the clothes they choose to wear or their haircut or the way they vote or... Any difference, really... I guess you focus on similarity as best you can. What it is that you can empathize with.
E.g., I think Bob has introduced the notion that vigilance can sometimes arise from trauma. Can you empathise with that? I know I am vigilant because of trauma. I know that I sometimes jump to conclusions about others or see the world through oddly tinted glasses because of my past history. To think that something like that is going on for Lou helps me empathize with his behaviour on one level. Even though I might find it annoying as hell on another level. I'm sure people find my hypervigilance annoying as hell, too. My therapist said the diagnostic assessment was taking so long because I was quickly irritable and spent much of the time complaining about how nobody listens to me. I think... She might well be right. I'm not entirely sure I'm ready to change my behaviour just yet. Maybe if she did a little more of the rephrasing what she heard me say that might help...
I.. I'm not sure I can help Lou much more than she can help me. Mostly... I think there is a similar incomprehension... I don't quite see how to connect.
> What was the nature of the support she received.
Sometimes people could support her by saying that they cared about her and hopes she would feel better soon. Sometimes people could support her by giving her concrete examples of things to try (go for a walk or pet hammie or something). Sometimes people could support her by saying that they understood how she felt. Sometimes people could support her by encouraging her to hang in there and reminding her that the feeling had always passed before and likely would again.
I guess you would need to ask her what kinds of things were helpful. And when they were helpful...
I mean... Think about being a psychologist yourself. You have a client who is engaged in something that you personally don't condone. Drug abuse. Or self harm. Or something... That you personally don't condone. Does that mean that you can't support them or help them? I think you can separate the person from the behaviour and find aspects to empathise with / work with.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 16:53:58
In reply to Re: support » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 14:45:11
and if you can't... well...
when i can't i see it as a deficit in me.
i...
there were times when i couldn't handle deneb's suicidal posts... but... i didn't think she should be blocked for them. because... there usually was someone who WAS in the position to say something helpful to her. sometimes the most help i could offer was to simply stay out of it (refrain from posting something positively unhelpful) and let other people relate to her.
i think...
maybe lou gets something from dialoguing with bob here. and other people sometimes too, of course.
i would feel sad if that was taken from him.
of course i am also sad that other people feel upset in response to his posts... but i think that it would harm them less to refrain from reading his posts than it would harm him if he were not allowed to post here.
like how i feel it would harm my flatmates less to listen to music at a lower volume / with their doors shut / with headphones than it would harm me to read in a noisy environment.
i guess sometimes... one does have to try and weigh harms...
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 17:37:50
In reply to Re: support, posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 16:49:41
> I guess I'm thinking back to how people have supported me even when I was engaged in behaviour they didn't condone (e.g., self harm, angry outbursts, near catatonia).
Okay. Now I understand. Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2013, at 13:23:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Willful on October 22, 2013, at 10:35:19
> > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
> >
> > My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
> >
> > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> >
> > This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> Surely your taking certain actions doesn't depend on whether any other poster to babble "would be happy with" your doing it?
>
> Yet your question alone shows ~~visibly~~ as Lou likes to say-- how much you cater to him, and give him special privileges--
>
> This is seemingly because he has make himself so unavoidable and continuous a presence that you've backed further and further into some sort of need simply to satisfy him-- if only he will be quiet and leave you in peace.
>
> Just because one poster simply won't cease and desist assailing you with such an endless and self-reinforcing litany of insistences about certain phrases that are obnoxious to him-- should you literally step into the echo chamber of this distorted universe-- where a few phrases from several years ago are worthy of this relentless energy-? --- phrases that had been laid to rest and would for all intents and purpose not particularly exist-- had Lou not given them a third, fourth and fifth life by citing them over and over again?
>
> Words have a certain life-- and if they don't catch fire with other words and actions, they gradually lose their vitality-- and eventually sputter out-- unless there is someone who blows on the flame, and feeds the fire, so as to keep them alive. Great writers are kept alive by the fire of their readers. Noxious phrases apparently are also subject to being kept alive by those who are compelled to rehearse them, crying out for some revenge.
>
> And honestly--- you give Lou even this privilege of certifying that your unique action in his case is acceptable to him?
>
> But you see-- he won't go away and is not so easy bought off, it appears--- and requires now that you do what you alone consider right-- without it in the least stifling his eternal protest that you have not done enough.
>
> You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
>
> Willful
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...be cautious out the can of worms...].
I could be seen as the subject person involving the can of worms. But I do not see it as a can of worms being opened, but a can of Justice being opened. And a can of Freedom. And a can of Liberty. Liberty for the Jew, Liberty for the Islamic person, Liberty for the Hindu, and Liberty for all those people that have a way to their God and a way to their afterlife that is different from what the poster writes here that is in question as the poster says is the only religion that can have a path back to God which is plainly visible against Mr Hsiung's own stated rules. And as long as that statement can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, and supportive, then all Jews, all Islamic people, all Hindus an all others that have religions not based on the claim of Christiandom here, could feel put down. They could feel put down because the statement puts down Jews and the others. My question is why in this world would anyone want the statement to stand as civil and supportive here.
Lou
>
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2013, at 17:08:18
In reply to Lou's reply-diph-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:39:49
> > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
> >
> > My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
> >
> > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> >
> > This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. You wrote here that you would post in that thread something that could show readers that the statement in question puts down, at least Jews, by posting that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. This is all because the statement states that [...Christianity is the {only} religion that...].
> That statement precludes Jews, Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions that are not Christian based.
> Now I don't claim to be a great reader, but this I see. I see that you will do that {if} I accept your rephrases. As I read that, I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action to the post in question by posting in that thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community because it puts down Jews and others.
> If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
> If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
I am unsure now if you are making a condition to me for you to take affirmative action to remediate the statement in question. Now if you are doing that here,
A.
B. If you agree that the statement at least puts down Jews, could it still put down Jews if I do not accommodate your request to me and you do not post in that thread something to indicate that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community?
C. If someone else posted that they would accept your rephrases, would you then post in that thread what could put out the fire of hatred toward the Jews and others?
D. Would you be willing to ask a former deputy to do that?
E. Would you be willing to accept responsibility for injuries or deaths that could arise from people on mind-altering drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist/doctor reading the statement in question and then targeting a Jew for murder because they were swayed by what they read that [..{only} Christianity offers...]?
F. Would you be willing to take responsibility if I am subjected to anti-Semitic violence, be it physical or psychological/emotional, as a result of a reader here thinking when they see the statements at issue here stand that put down at least Jews, and then could think that if you, a psychiatrist, have the statements being seen as supportive in your community, then they could think that it is supportive for Jews to be put down in their community?
G. What good will come to this community by leaving those statement to be seen as supportive, if it is a condition to me to accept your rephrase in order for you to take remedial action?
Lou Pilder
Posted by 10derheart on October 24, 2013, at 18:42:43
In reply to Lou's reply--whtgud-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2013, at 17:08:18
>>D. Would you be willing to ask a former deputy to do that?
Lol. Hope no one holds their breath till this happens!
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2013, at 0:03:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Willful on October 22, 2013, at 10:35:19
> Surely your taking certain actions doesn't depend on whether any other poster to babble "would be happy with" your doing it?
>
> Yet your question alone shows ~~visibly~~ as Lou likes to say-- how much you cater to him, and give him special privileges--
>
> This is seemingly because he has make himself so unavoidable and continuous a presence that you've backed further and further into some sort of need simply to satisfy him-- if only he will be quiet and leave you in peace.
>
> You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
>
> WillfulThere's a tension, or dialectic, here. On the one hand, I should do what posters want. OTOH, I should do what I think is right.
I see myself not as giving Lou special privileges, but as taking his concerns seriously. Just because he's a minority doesn't mean his concerns shouldn't be taken seriously.
I like peace and quiet, but I also want to improve the rules, and understanding of the rules.
What worms do you see in the can?
--
> I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action
> If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
> If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
>
> Lou PilderOK, we don't seem to be able to agree on a path forward. Should we move on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2013, at 0:09:20
In reply to Re: support, posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 16:49:41
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2013, at 7:12:26
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2013, at 0:03:21
> > Surely your taking certain actions doesn't depend on whether any other poster to babble "would be happy with" your doing it?
> >
> > Yet your question alone shows ~~visibly~~ as Lou likes to say-- how much you cater to him, and give him special privileges--
> >
> > This is seemingly because he has make himself so unavoidable and continuous a presence that you've backed further and further into some sort of need simply to satisfy him-- if only he will be quiet and leave you in peace.
> >
> > You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
> >
> > Willful
>
> There's a tension, or dialectic, here. On the one hand, I should do what posters want. OTOH, I should do what I think is right.
>
> I see myself not as giving Lou special privileges, but as taking his concerns seriously. Just because he's a minority doesn't mean his concerns shouldn't be taken seriously.
>
> I like peace and quiet, but I also want to improve the rules, and understanding of the rules.
>
> What worms do you see in the can?
>
> --
>
> > I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action
> > If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
> > If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> OK, we don't seem to be able to agree on a path forward. Should we move on to another statement?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You say that you want to do what is right and that you take my concerns seriously.
I would think that if that is true, then my concern that the three statements in question here that have not been notated by you in the threads where they appear as to not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community could mean that what you consider to be right is that statements that could put down at least Jews are to be left to stand are what you are doing as "right" and to leave them as supportive will be good for this community as a whole.
This could lead a subset of readers to have hatred infused in them toward Jews and others that are depicted in the statements in question. I base this on the historical record when anti-Semitic statements are allowed to be promulgated by the leader and then the hatred involved that can come from that is exponentially increased because that subset of people could think that hatred toward the Jews is state-sponsored.
Now we have you wanting to go on while leaving that the following statements are allowed to be seen as supportive by you. Here are the three.
A.[... in the top ten worst reasons for organized religion, one of them is that the religion has its agenda not centered in Christ...]. The statement puts down and is an insult to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ
B.[... Christianity is the only religion that has a path back to god..]. This is against you own stated rules and puts down and insults Jews and the others.
C. The passage of Jesus cleansing the Temple and depicting the Jews as moneychangers that have greed as the poster writes, is a passage that stigmatizes and stereotypes Jews for centuries and has led millions of Jewish children and adults being murdered . This is left as supportive by you here.
Now those three put down Jews and others, and readers could see them as being good for this community as a whole to stand.
I would think that if you are taking my concerns seriously as you say, that you have not addressed my concerns as serious, until you post in those threads remedial action as to show that they are not supportive. If you do not, then what you have posted here as to that you do what is right, then readers could think that it is right for these anti-Semitic statements to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
Lou Pilder
Now if you are not going to take affirmative action on the above three, then you could go on to this:
Here is a statement that you have allowed for readers to think is supportive and good for this community as a whole. I am asking that you immediately post in the thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. For if it is, then hate is good for this community as a whole, and you say that you want to do what is right. Now is a time for you to declare what you think is "right" by either taking remedial action on that post or allowing it to stand as supportive.
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051978.html
Posted by Willful on October 25, 2013, at 9:01:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2013, at 0:03:21
>
What worms do you see in the can?
>
> --~~~~ what worms do you see in the can Bob?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2013, at 20:02:25
In reply to Re: thanks for your support (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2013, at 0:09:20
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2013, at 14:25:37
In reply to Lou's request-ryt-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2013, at 7:12:26
> You say that you want to do what is right and that you take my concerns seriously.
> the three statements in question here that have not been notated by you ... could lead a subset of readers to have hatred infused in them toward Jews and others
> I would think that if you are taking my concerns seriously as you say, that you have not addressed my concerns as serious, until you post in those threads remedial action as to show that they are not supportive.I can take your concerns seriously, but still not agree with you. For example, I don't agree with you about how likely it is that those statements will infuse hatred in readers.
> Now if you are not going to take affirmative action on the above three, then you could go on to this:
> Here is a statement that you have allowed for readers to think is supportive and good for this community as a whole. I am asking that you immediately post in the thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. For if it is, then hate is good for this community as a whole, and you say that you want to do what is right. Now is a time for you to declare what you think is "right" by either taking remedial action on that post or allowing it to stand as supportive.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051978.htmlI took action after Lar posted that. Again, I disagree with you about how likely it is that that statement will be seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole.
This isn't the first time a poster and I have disagreed about whether I'm listening. I think part of it may be semantic. The poster may mean "listen" in the sense of "give heed to attentively in order to obey", whereas I mean "attend to closely".
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2013, at 14:29:00
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Willful on October 25, 2013, at 9:01:51
> > > You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
> >
> > What worms do you see in the can?
>
> ~~~~ what worms do you see in the can Bob?I asked first. :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2013, at 20:50:28
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2013, at 14:25:37
> > You say that you want to do what is right and that you take my concerns seriously.
> > the three statements in question here that have not been notated by you ... could lead a subset of readers to have hatred infused in them toward Jews and others
> > I would think that if you are taking my concerns seriously as you say, that you have not addressed my concerns as serious, until you post in those threads remedial action as to show that they are not supportive.
>
> I can take your concerns seriously, but still not agree with you. For example, I don't agree with you about how likely it is that those statements will infuse hatred in readers.
>
> > Now if you are not going to take affirmative action on the above three, then you could go on to this:
> > Here is a statement that you have allowed for readers to think is supportive and good for this community as a whole. I am asking that you immediately post in the thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. For if it is, then hate is good for this community as a whole, and you say that you want to do what is right. Now is a time for you to declare what you think is "right" by either taking remedial action on that post or allowing it to stand as supportive.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051978.html
>
> I took action after Lar posted that. Again, I disagree with you about how likely it is that that statement will be seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole.
>
> This isn't the first time a poster and I have disagreed about whether I'm listening. I think part of it may be semantic. The poster may mean "listen" in the sense of "give heed to attentively in order to obey", whereas I mean "attend to closely".
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I do not agree with you about how likely it is that those statements will infuse hatred in readers...].
I do not see how your reply to me addresses my concerns here. My concerns are that there are the three posts I question that I am asking for you to post something in the threads to show that those statements are not supportive, unless you are contending that they are supportive. If you are contending that they are supportive, could you please state such? You say that you disagree with me about the likelihood of those statements infusing hatred in readers. But that is not what I wrote. I wrote that :
[...there could be a subset of readers to have hatred infused in them toward Jews and others...].
But the issue here is in regards to your terms of service which has in it that one is not to post what could put down or accuse another, not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and not to post what is not supportive for support takes precedence. The statements in question are naked in any statement from you that they are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, so readers could see them as being supportive because support takes precedence and you state that you do not wait to put out a match, for one match could start a forest fire. The initial fire could be very small at first, but then escalate to an inferno. Here, the initial statement could be like a match, and may even be considered by you to not have great likelihood to cause hatred to be infused in someone toward Jews and others. But it is your own thinking that it doesn't matter if a match is a small fire, for if it is not put out initially, it could cause a forest fire. Your analogy is correct and there could IMO be a subset of readers that could think that since the statement is one that puts down Jews, and Islamic people and others, and is not addressed by you or your deputies, that it is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole as you say that you are doing here. That statement by you could be IMO felt to the core by a subet of people as an insult to Jews and Islamic people and others. The TOS of yours states that you will act without waiting on statements that are not supportive, and not if they could or could not infuse hatred in readers toward Jews and others. The context here is what it is. If you do not think that these statements could infuse hatred in readers, remember that I did not say that. What I did say is that I want you to take remedial action in those threads: TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE (emphasis mine), unless you think that they are supportive and then I would like for you to post that here.
In regards to Lar's post, there is not a post by you *linked* to the post in question at all. And anyway, the post that you did link to is a different post than the one that I have asked you to link to. I would like for you to explain to readers here what you are saying that you acted on what I am asking you to act on, when your action is to another post and there are things in one post that are not in the other.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 8:30:13
In reply to Lou's reply-schoemeigh » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 22:02:57
> > Lou,
> >
> > IMO, as long as you see your often-used description, i.e:
> >
> > >>statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings
> >
> > as factual, "plainly seen," obvious, and/or downplay/completely disregard the word **could** no meaningful dialog will take place. To me, this means they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination. I think you write this over and over again as a given, when it is anything but that.
> >
> > As long as you cannot imagine or entertain the idea that for many Babblers, the statements you cite in posts are NOT...
> >
> > >>plainly visible [here are] statements that put down Jews
> >
> > no meaningful dialog will take place. I find when I am passionate about a thing, those are the times I must get myself to imagine the completely opposite POV in order to have meaningful dialog. I do that with you, the best I possibly can, but I just still can't conceive of these things as anti-Semitism.
> >
> > >>posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr.[sic] Hsiung.
> >
> > Did Dr. Bob say the above...exactly? I thought he said he could see how you could think one particular statement in one post *might* or *could* cause Jews or others to feel put down. Am I mistaken? Did he say an actual (not hypothetically) post or posts are anti-Semitic? Could you show me that?
> >
> > 10,
> You wrote,[...could you show me that?...]
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> > Lou
>
> 10,
Now that you see what is plainly visible above in the link that does state that Mr Hsiung agrees with me that statements that could put down Jews are anti-Semitic statements, I have the following concerns and if you could post answers to them, I think that could go a long way in helping Jews from being victims of anti-Semitic violence that IMHO could come from this site by the nature that anti-Semitic statements are plainly visible here and could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive. And more than that, there are statements that IMHO could induce hostile and disparaging opinions and feelings against me here that a subset of readers IMO could be influenced by to target a Jew or Islamic person or others that are not Christians for harm by the nature that this community has these statements that could put down Jews and Islamic people being plainly seen as that they will be good for this community as a whole because Mr Hsiung's terms of service state that in his thinking he wants readers to trust him in that what he does, or I guess what he doesn't do, will be good for this community as a whole. And since he states that one match could start a forest fire so that he does not wait to sanction a statement, unsanctioned statements could cause a subset of people to think that those statements are supportive because Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and not to post what could put down those of other faiths. As to statements that do put down Jews and others being allowed to stand, IMHO there could be a subset of people that could think that antisemitism is state-sponsored here. This is part of how I understand, and other psychologists also, how hate groups develop over time. I am here to stop this community from allowing hatred to be allowed to stand here. As to anti-Semitic statements here being allowed to stand here, I ask you:
A. Do you agree with Mr Hsiung in that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow those statements to stand?
B. In this statement in particular, if you think that it will be good for it to stand, what good will there be if the statement continues to be allowed to stand? The statement says something like:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a path back to the Father...].
The statement puts down Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and others that have a religion that has a path back to the Father that is not a Christian religion. The statement insult those religion and there IMHO and knowledge are subsets of people that are in those religions being put down that could feel greatly offended when they read the statement that says something like, [...Christianity is the {only}....]. The use of the word {only}precludes all those that are not members of Christianity, does it not? Thearfore, a subset of readers could think that their religion , if not Christian, can not have a path for them to return to the Father. (but Christianity does). That is an example of the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
C. Were you a deputy when that was posted?
D. If so, why did you not address the post in relation to the rules of Mr Hsiung's TOS?
E. Were you ever told not to address it as deputy? If so, by whom?
F. If you are not going to help me stop these statements from being allowed to be seen as supportive and good for this community as a whole by the nature that they are allowed to stand, for what reason could you give to not use any influence that you could have to help me?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2013, at 11:00:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevay » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2013, at 20:50:28
> In regards to Lar's post, there is not a post by you *linked* to the post in question at all. And anyway, the post that you did link to is a different post than the one that I have asked you to link to. I would like for you to explain to readers here what you are saying that you acted on what I am asking you to act on, when your action is to another post and there are things in one post that are not in the other.
My response was to both of them even though it was "in reply to" only the latter.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 15:59:04
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2013, at 11:00:28
> > In regards to Lar's post, there is not a post by you *linked* to the post in question at all. And anyway, the post that you did link to is a different post than the one that I have asked you to link to. I would like for you to explain to readers here what you are saying that you acted on what I am asking you to act on, when your action is to another post and there are things in one post that are not in the other.
>
> My response was to both of them even though it was "in reply to" only the latter.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that your reply was to both posts by Mr. Hoover. But does your reply address what is in the post by Mr. Hoover that is directed against me? If it does not, the consequences to me could be grave. For the poster mentions death to me. One would need to speculate how my death could happen as the poster wants it to happen to me, along with language IMHHO the asterisk does not hide, as language that could offend others could be a phrase that could be seen regardless of an asterisk in one word of the phrase. That is not in the second post by Mr. Hoover that you linked to, so what you posted to that post does not address the phrase wanting death to me with the street language along with it.
Because you have not addressed that part in the second post by Mr. Hoover, because it is not in that post, readers can not see anything by you that addresses the aspect of death to me by what Mr. Hoover wrote against me. This could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Mr. Hoover wrote against me is conducive to he civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in my death by there could be a subset of readers thinking that my death will be good for this community as a whole for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
I have some questions to you that will follow if you do not address the aspect in question concerning my death in that post before you make any other post....
Lou Pilder
Posted by larryhoover on November 10, 2013, at 17:41:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discu-tehykdthlytlee, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2013, at 15:59:04
"Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
--The Robot (Class M-3 Model B9, General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Robot, from 'Lost in Space'.)"This could conceivably result in my death..."
--Lou PilderTry reading for comprehension, Lou. I told you to FOAD, not that I or anyone else was going to kill you.
This statement by Lou could IMHO lead a subset of readers to think that what Lou Pilder suggested that Mr. Hoover wrote against him is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. This could conceivably result in negative perceptions of me, as there could be a subset of readers thinking that Lou's actual death was promoted by me, whether or not that will be good for this community as a whole, for you write that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and for others to try to trust you in that and that you would post a sanction because you do not wait to do so if there is even a match lit, which could start a forest fire, so that if a statement is not sanctioned, it could be considered by some to be supportive because you say that support takes precedence.
Pheww!
Try the blue pills. I hear they're very effective for psychotic delusions about horsemen and instructions from God.
Lar
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.