![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 201 to 225 of 225. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:15:37
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2013, at 22:40:52
How would mentioning deputies, when there are no active deputies and are not likely to be, improve Babble? What gains can there be above the pain caused to former deputies?
But that you can see gain that outweighs the pain, despite the lack of current deputies, reinforces my belief that **this** Babble is not really the sort of environment I wish to put myself in. I can change my life by changing my environment. I choose not be in an uncivil environment.
I guess I can thank you for that.
Posted by Twinleaf on October 14, 2013, at 16:04:06
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:15:37
Dinah has a very good point. It has been several years since there were any active deputies (I know Racer still contributes, but rarely). The deputies' ability to help you carry out the civility and blocking policies of several years ago apparently weakened and then ceased at the same time that you stopped actively administering these policies, in what seemed like a tacit recognition that they were causing a lot of stress and distress. I think we assumed that you knew that a site dedicated to mutual support and education had gone off-course, and you wanted to find a way to correct that.
Do you really expect that we will support the deputies for trying to carry out policies which simply weren't working well? Isn't it a given that they have all been outstanding members of the community who are all valued and supported as people? What is missing , in your mind? What support would you like from us that you feel we are not giving? It actually appears that you are asking for support for your own previous policies. I had hoped, and thought, that we had all grown from acknowledging the mistakes of that era, and are now working together to put them behind us. But, sadly, as Sigi has noted, perhaps not.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 20, 2013, at 23:47:21
In reply to Re: support. Dr.Bob, posted by Twinleaf on October 14, 2013, at 16:04:06
> How would mentioning deputies, when there are no active deputies and are not likely to be, improve Babble? What gains can there be above the pain caused to former deputies?
Support could be above, or at least at the same level as, pain.
> But that you can see gain that outweighs the pain, despite the lack of current deputies, reinforces my belief that **this** Babble is not really the sort of environment I wish to put myself in. I can change my life by changing my environment. I choose not be in an uncivil environment.
>
> DinahI still consider this environment civil, even if it's not exactly a refuge. (Reasonable people can disagree.)
> Do you really expect that we will support the deputies for trying to carry out policies which simply weren't working well? ... What is missing , in your mind? What support would you like from us that you feel we are not giving?
>
> TwinleafI do expect posters to support the deputies for contributing to and making sacrifices for Babble. They put themselves in harm's way. Maybe Deputies Day could be the Babble version of Veterans Day.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on October 21, 2013, at 6:31:04
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 20, 2013, at 23:47:21
This is where we have a difference of opinin which I'm afraid cannot be bridged. You know that I feel great respect and support for each deputy, and I do admire their willingness to help administer your policies - including bearing the stresses which came with doing that. You mention that they put themselves in harm's way, and that is true. But - and this is all-important to me - I never harmed them , but they did harm me by helping to administer blocking policies towards me which to this day I consider very harsh and extreme. I have forgiven it but I would be stupid to forget it. I think it is very disrespectful of you to expect me to support actions which were harmful to me. I do feel the deputies were trying to be helpful, and did not mean to hurt anyone, but the blocking policy towards me in particular at that time was so harsh that hostility, punishment and emotional hurt were, unfortunately, an inevitable part of it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:37:36
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on October 21, 2013, at 6:31:04
> I feel great respect and support for each deputy, and I do admire their willingness to help administer your policies - including bearing the stresses which came with doing that. You mention that they put themselves in harm's way, and that is true.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
> But - and this is all-important to me - I never harmed them , but they did harm me by helping to administer blocking policies towards me which to this day I consider very harsh and extreme. I have forgiven it but I would be stupid to forget it. I think it is very disrespectful of you to expect me to support actions which were harmful to me. I do feel the deputies were trying to be helpful, and did not mean to hurt anyone, but the blocking policy towards me in particular at that time was so harsh that hostility, punishment and emotional hurt were, unfortunately, an inevitable part of it.
I accept, and regret, that my policies harmed you.
Maybe it's asking too much to expect posters who've been harmed by my policies to support the deputies. Maybe it's like expecting victims of friendly fire to support the military. Maybe forgiveness is all that can be expected.
(You may not have intended to harm the deputies, but may have. Just like they may not have intended to harm you, but may have.)
I wonder if a rapprochement might be possible. Should we start with me? Do you also feel I, through my policies, was trying to be helpful and didn't mean to hurt anyone?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on October 22, 2013, at 8:23:21
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:37:36
Bob, there is really a continuing problem here. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up the deputies! If you keep bringing them up, as Dinah points out, three are of course going to be hurt feelings as people honestly describe their reactions to that painful time several years ago. As far as I know, no posters - certainly not me - are bringing them up and we are certainly not blaming them. I consider, from the bitter feelings they express,that they were also victims of the unduly harsh and punitive administrative policy which prevailed at that time (but no longer does). Why don't you acknowledge that and then put the whole issue to rest?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2013, at 2:42:08
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on October 22, 2013, at 8:23:21
> If you keep bringing them up ... three are of course going to be hurt feelings as people honestly describe their reactions to that painful time several years ago.
Wouldn't it also be honest to express feelings of admiration for their willingness to administrate, and to bear the stresses which came with doing that?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on October 23, 2013, at 5:53:26
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2013, at 2:42:08
But I have expressed my admiration for that already - at least three times in just this one thread. And they have acknowledged that and said that they appreciated what I said. Everything is fine, except that you keep raising this topic. I don't think it's an active topic of concern to anyone other than you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2013, at 8:24:26
In reply to Re: support, posted by Twinleaf on October 23, 2013, at 5:53:26
> But I have expressed my admiration for that already - at least three times in just this one thread. And they have acknowledged that and said that they appreciated what I said. Everything is fine, except that you keep raising this topic. I don't think it's an active topic of concern to anyone other than you.
OK, maybe it's just me. If the present and former deputies feel supported, then everything's fine with me, too.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on October 24, 2013, at 9:18:28
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2013, at 8:24:26
So as to be as clear as possible what the actual problem is, it is not, and never has been, that we don't respect and appreciate the deputies or appreciate the heroic efforts they made to administer the policies in effect a few years ago as fairly as possible.
Judging from some of the comments they have made (only when the subject is brought up), they still have painful feelings about trying so hard to administer a policy so harsh, inconsistent and unpopular with the vast majority. It was a hopeless task for them - and for you. When the deputies express their feelings honestly, they seem mainly angry at you for putting them in such a difficult position. I think if you dealt more directly with the feelings they have towards you, rather than dragging all the rest of us into it, you would be taking steps towards resolution.
Posted by jane d on October 24, 2013, at 22:50:11
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on October 24, 2013, at 9:18:28
I'm very grateful to you for explaining to me throughout this thread what *we* think the problem really is. Until you did that *I* thought you might be harboring a grudge against the deputies for your own failure to grasp the site rules even long after those rules changed. Perhaps it was the tone of your disclaimers which (to me) sounded a bit like someone saying that yes, their neighbor was an ax murderer but of course he kept his lawn nicely mowed. I'm glad that *we* have now been corrected.
Jane,
pondering the experience of having turned into part of the "vast majority" just by staying silent.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2013, at 22:51:25
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on October 24, 2013, at 9:18:28
> it is not, and never has been, that we don't respect and appreciate the deputies or appreciate the heroic efforts they made to administer the policies in effect a few years ago as fairly as possible.
Thanks for reiterating that.
> Judging from some of the comments they have made ... they still have painful feelings about trying so hard to administer a policy so harsh, inconsistent and unpopular with the vast majority. It was a hopeless task for them - and for you. When the deputies express their feelings honestly, they seem mainly angry at you for putting them in such a difficult position. I think if you dealt more directly with the feelings they have towards you, rather than dragging all the rest of us into it, you would be taking steps towards resolution.
1. I'm willing to deal directly with any feelings they have towards me. They know how to reach me.
2. I wonder if support from posters would've helped them when they were in such a difficult position.
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on October 25, 2013, at 7:39:55
In reply to Re: support » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on October 24, 2013, at 22:50:11
I can see now that I made a mistake using the word "we". I should have just stayed with "I". Sorry!. I don't remember any expressions of criticism of the deputies by other posters, though, but I still should not have been speaking for anyone else.
I find the rest of your post extremely sarcastic and hostile.
Posted by jane d on October 25, 2013, at 23:28:19
In reply to Re: support » jane d, posted by Twinleaf on October 25, 2013, at 7:39:55
> I find the rest of your post extremely sarcastic and hostile..You're right. It was. I've been regretting the tone since I posted it. I now wish I had said something more along the lines that I wished you wouldn't sound like you were speaking for everyone and that I hoped that you hadn't been mislead into believing that you did merely because no one openly disagreed. And I should have said it a long time ago instead of taking years worth of irritation out on you in one post.
Of course I also disagree with you about the value of the deputies *as deputies* and I really hope that it is my view of the great job they did that they go away believing, not yours.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2013, at 13:51:51
In reply to Re: support » Twinleaf, posted by jane d on October 25, 2013, at 23:28:19
> I hoped that you hadn't been mislead into believing that you did merely because no one openly disagreed.
It's easy to jump to conclusions online. You can't look around to see if others are nodding in agreement or rolling their eyes in disbelief.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 8, 2013, at 2:46:48
In reply to Re: why one should have to learn this, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2013, at 1:49:26
How the H*ll would a refuge board work?
Lou could still arouse anti-former-deputy feeling and as long as I didn't read it, I'd be happy as can be to post politely with him on the Refuge board?
I am appalled to think that you allow former deputies to be abused because they tried to help you out. And I'm not just talking me here. It's beyond enough that the abuse we were forced to tolerate as deputies can't be outlawed once we go back to being purely mental health consumers on this board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 2:59:04
In reply to Re: why one should have to learn this » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 8, 2013, at 2:46:48
> How the H*ll would a refuge board work?
>
> Lou could still arouse anti-former-deputy feeling and as long as I didn't read it, I'd be happy as can be to post politely with him on the Refuge board?The idea is that it would be a refuge from anti-former-deputy feelings, including those posted by Lou. You'd be safe from them there.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 4:14:33
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 2:59:04
Ok, then, let me say I don't understand your thinking at all if you don't see that that isn't anywhere near a ....
Oh, screw it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 17:42:35
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 4:14:33
> Ok, then, let me say I don't understand your thinking at all if you don't see that that isn't anywhere near a ....
Or maybe I don't understand your thinking at all.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 18:35:48
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 17:42:35
Ok, I can see one situation where it might work. If it were completely separate from Babble.
For the most part, anyone could join as part of joining Babble. But if anyone is uncivil to anyone who posts on Civility Babble on Incivility Babble, they lose their citizenship on Civility Babble as well as if they are repeatedly uncivil on Civility Babble. There would be no blocks, no lengths, they would be laterally moved. And they could apply for reinstatement to Civility Babble after proving that they want to be on a site moderated for civility and understand what that entails.
Naturally, those who wished to hold dual citizenship, and could operate in both environments, could do so. In fact, that would be the default.
And the loss of citizenship, or request to terminate citizenship, needn't be all one way. I wouldn't want posting privileges in Uncivil Babble. I would treat it like I treat any site that I wouldn't want to be part of.
Because it wouldn't work if people on Civil Babble had to politely get along with people who are being highly uncivil towards them on Incivility Babble.
So for example, a poster who routinely posts uncivilly on Uncivil Babble, for example by repeated accusations of antisemitism or towards parents for harming their children through the use of psychiatric medications, they would not be allowed at all on Civil Babble. Just as an example and certainly not the only example.
Although all sorts of posts could be on Civil Babble (medications, psychology, social) the way it used to be on Babble before the split, there would have to be a separate Admin board even though reporting would be off board for the most part. That Admin board could be erased or at least archived as soon as a topic is resolved. That way the separate-board-operating-as-a-separate-site would be self contained, and posters would be able to post as if Incivility Babble were a separate site like Psych Central.
Civil Babble posters who wouldn't mind entering Uncivil Babble could suggest to those on Uncivil Babble who are upset at, for example, being accused of various things, that they join them on the board where those things won't happen.
Because the reason a Refuge Board won't work as a part of Babble is that just because people are polite there, it doesn't mean they aren't being very impolite about Civility Board posters elsewhere on the site. And I prefer the term Civility Board to Refuge Board, because we wouldn't necessarily have to walk on tippytoes. Just be reasonably respectful of each other.
Of course the names could be tweaked. Moderated Babble as opposed to.... Well, exactly what are you doing now? Group Facilitation Babble?
What would be even better would be if you made original Babble Moderated Babble, and enforce at least some of the old rules, and direct those who wish to post under the new paradigm to the alternate board. That would have the additional benefit of allowing you to be an ersatz therapist to people on the Group Facilitation board, because it would be made clear that that would be the way things were moderated there. You could conduct all your experiments in board management there, and people could grow as strong as you can make them.
Ooooh, and Moderated Babble wouldn't have Tweet or Facebook buttons. Maybe with greater assurances of privacy, some who were driven away might feel comfortable dropping in. You could be respectful of group feelings about such innovations, while still being able to experiment as much as you like on Group Facilitation Babble.
Best of all, you need never block anyone. You can just suggest to those who are having trouble remaining civil that Moderated Babble isn't the best fit for them, but that Group Facilitation Babble might be just the right place.
Actually I'm rather excited at the possibilities. Moderated Babble could even have the "Please cut that out" that would always have been desirable for behaviors that were uncivil in intent, but not form. Time outs or cooling off periods would last until the person is willing to abide by site rules, not for any set length of time. Politics and Religion could be part of Group Facilitation Babble, although respectful sharing of personal experiences would be allowed on the Moderated board. If it got less respectful, it would be redirected from the first unrespectful post to Group Facilitation Babble.
But without that wall between boards, the idea is unworkable.
Posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 23:25:44
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 18:35:48
That's pretty intriguing stuff. Wish my mind would create stuff like that - so detailed, so quickly, and making so much sense.
Too bad it'll never happen since whether you meant it more tongue-in-cheek or more serious, I actually like the sound of it.
I like the sound of any possibility to bring normalcy/civility back to a place like Babble, I suppose. Pipe dream, I think :-(
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:40:23
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 23:25:44
Well, I was serious, although there may be things that would need to be ironed out. It was actually said in a sudden spirit of compromise, as well as to try to explain to Dr. Bob why just adding a board called the Refuge board where people would have to be polite to each other *only* on that board would be more frustrating than soothing.
But apparently Bob doesn't think much of the idea. Surprise, surprise.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 11:15:20
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 18:35:48
> Ok, I can see one situation where it might work. If it were completely separate from Babble.
>
> For the most part, anyone could join as part of joining Babble. But if anyone is uncivil to anyone who posts on Civility Babble on Incivility Babble, they lose their citizenship on Civility Babble as well as if they are repeatedly uncivil on Civility Babble. There would be no blocks, no lengths, they would be laterally moved. And they could apply for reinstatement to Civility Babble after proving that they want to be on a site moderated for civility and understand what that entails.
>
> I wouldn't want posting privileges in Uncivil Babble. I would treat it like I treat any site that I wouldn't want to be part of.
>
> Because it wouldn't work if people on Civil Babble had to politely get along with people who are being highly uncivil towards them on Incivility Babble.
>
> Although all sorts of posts could be on Civil Babble (medications, psychology, social) the way it used to be on Babble before the split, there would have to be a separate Admin board even though reporting would be off board for the most part. That Admin board could be erased or at least archived as soon as a topic is resolved. That way the separate-board-operating-as-a-separate-site would be self contained, and posters would be able to post as if Incivility Babble were a separate site
>
> Because the reason a Refuge Board won't work as a part of Babble is that just because people are polite there, it doesn't mean they aren't being very impolite about Civility Board posters elsewhere on the site. And I prefer the term Civility Board to Refuge Board, because we wouldn't necessarily have to walk on tippytoes. Just be reasonably respectful of each other.
>
> Ooooh, and Moderated Babble wouldn't have Tweet or Facebook buttons. Maybe with greater assurances of privacy, some who were driven away might feel comfortable dropping in.
>
> Actually I'm rather excited at the possibilities. Moderated Babble could even have the "Please cut that out" that would always have been desirable for behaviors that were uncivil in intent, but not form. Time outs or cooling off periods would last until the person is willing to abide by site rules, not for any set length of time.Thanks for spelling out what you have in mind. I'm open to trying it. Would you like to moderate it?
What I'm thinking is that usually what's considered acceptable behavior depends on the context. If an 18-year-old lives in a state where the drinking age is 21, but visits a state where it's 18, it's acceptable for them to drink there. And they aren't arrested when they go home. It could be acceptable for them to swear in a bar, but not on their job. And if they swear in a bar, they aren't fired from their job.
Though I suppose people could choose to accept that admission to a new board was contingent on their behavior on other boards. Like elected officials accept that expectations of them extend beyond their behavior in the office.
Bob
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 1, 2014, at 12:11:57
In reply to Re: How a refuge board would work, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 11:15:20
Bob Dinah doesn't want to be her own shield she wants to be shielded by you. Sheeeeesh that was a low blow. Moderator indeed.
> > Ok, I can see one situation where it might work. If it were completely separate from Babble.
> >
> > For the most part, anyone could join as part of joining Babble. But if anyone is uncivil to anyone who posts on Civility Babble on Incivility Babble, they lose their citizenship on Civility Babble as well as if they are repeatedly uncivil on Civility Babble. There would be no blocks, no lengths, they would be laterally moved. And they could apply for reinstatement to Civility Babble after proving that they want to be on a site moderated for civility and understand what that entails.
> >
> > I wouldn't want posting privileges in Uncivil Babble. I would treat it like I treat any site that I wouldn't want to be part of.
> >
> > Because it wouldn't work if people on Civil Babble had to politely get along with people who are being highly uncivil towards them on Incivility Babble.
> >
> > Although all sorts of posts could be on Civil Babble (medications, psychology, social) the way it used to be on Babble before the split, there would have to be a separate Admin board even though reporting would be off board for the most part. That Admin board could be erased or at least archived as soon as a topic is resolved. That way the separate-board-operating-as-a-separate-site would be self contained, and posters would be able to post as if Incivility Babble were a separate site
> >
> > Because the reason a Refuge Board won't work as a part of Babble is that just because people are polite there, it doesn't mean they aren't being very impolite about Civility Board posters elsewhere on the site. And I prefer the term Civility Board to Refuge Board, because we wouldn't necessarily have to walk on tippytoes. Just be reasonably respectful of each other.
> >
> > Ooooh, and Moderated Babble wouldn't have Tweet or Facebook buttons. Maybe with greater assurances of privacy, some who were driven away might feel comfortable dropping in.
> >
> > Actually I'm rather excited at the possibilities. Moderated Babble could even have the "Please cut that out" that would always have been desirable for behaviors that were uncivil in intent, but not form. Time outs or cooling off periods would last until the person is willing to abide by site rules, not for any set length of time.
>
> Thanks for spelling out what you have in mind. I'm open to trying it. Would you like to moderate it?
>
> What I'm thinking is that usually what's considered acceptable behavior depends on the context. If an 18-year-old lives in a state where the drinking age is 21, but visits a state where it's 18, it's acceptable for them to drink there. And they aren't arrested when they go home. It could be acceptable for them to swear in a bar, but not on their job. And if they swear in a bar, they aren't fired from their job.
>
> Though I suppose people could choose to accept that admission to a new board was contingent on their behavior on other boards. Like elected officials accept that expectations of them extend beyond their behavior in the office.
>
> Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 16, 2015, at 8:46:15
In reply to Lou's response- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2013, at 15:40:56
> > > > Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeez, I think you have a lot to be proud of over the years for your supportive contributions to this site Scott.
> >
> > Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was sincere in my sentiments, Toph. I am always interested to know your perspecitives and respect your intellect and insights, even when we disagree.
> >
> > When I first started posting here in 1999, there was no active moderation - no warnings or posting blocks. Many people look back at this time with a nostalgic fondness as Psycho-Babble's golden age. There were occasional uncivil comments and vitriolic arguments. Peer pressure usually helped to moderate this, though. I remember feeling constrained and stifled by the Psycho-Babble guidelines of civil communication when they first appeared. I was very much against their institution. However, it wasn't very long before I saw the advantages of moderation such that everyone had the opportunity to feel safe and protected from overbearing personalities like mine. I then came to see the emergence of a moderation protocol that managed to crush any feelings of nurturing that Psycho-Babble had provided for. The moderation style created a situation wherein the Administration board became the main attraction of the website and a source of perpetual drama. Interestingly, when active moderation ceased, there was an inertia of sorts that facilitated a continued awareness of civility that helped the community to maintain civil communication. There was some degree of self-moderation of the website forums that persisted for a few years. Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes one person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website. Such a situation can be rectified quite easily though. Since laisez-faire allows for, and effectively promotes, incivility in such people, it seems to me that active moderation is desirable, albeit to a lesser degree than was exercised previously.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> you wrote,[...Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes on person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website...].
> What you have posted about me here, and I could be thought to be the subject person here, could not only put me in a false light, but since that posts that you claim by me that {challenge the health of the website}, if there are any, I do not have the opportunity to post from my perspective to show the context of any post that you use to substantiate such a claim here.
> This could IMHO damage me and Jews throughout the world. For since the URLs used by you to make the claims here about me are not specified, they could, at least, be the ones from me concerning those from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, or the one's from me asking over and over for posts that have statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews to (redacted by respondent) . You see, your use of the ancient false charge against the Jews of harming the health of other people in a community, called {poisoning the well}, that Jew-haters used in the 1300s to persecute Jews and kill Jews saying that they brought the Black Plague to Europe that killed 50% of mankind there in a few years, saying the Jews poisoned the wells. That was impossible, for the Black Death was from a flea that dwelled in a rat that bit the people.
> It is also impossible for me to damage the health of this community, for I am following the prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung as other human beings could do. That does not challenge the health of this community, as for if it did, then all members posting here could have the potential to damage the health of the community. The damage to the health of the community is not a result of me posting as a member here under the same terms and conditions of others. What could damage the health of the community IMHO is the creation of two standards here, which is known as discrimination, that is agreed by Mr Hsiung to be an abuse of power by the leader of a community in the same camp as slavery, infanticide, genocide and segregation. All those things sponsored by a community can IMHHHHO lead to the challenge of the health of a community as history records. You write these things about me here that could induce hostile, disagreeable feeling or opinions toward me and decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held. This could challenge my health and I would like readers to read the following post in the link concerning this situation that I find myself in so that you could have a better understanding of what is being tried here by members that could induce scapegoating and now, that I am challenging the health of the community. I say to you that are in concert with those here to (redacted by respondent) me, that you will (redacted by respondent), for even if you are swayed by those here to think of me as challenging the health of this community, remember the rat flea. This post will not go unchallenged to the world, for it stands as it is, it is what it is, it says what it says, it can be seen and is plainly visible.
> Lou
> > Here is the link to the post that I would like for you to read:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049210.html
>
>
Scott,
Would you be willing to continue this topic with me here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post responses to whatever you post here that IMO could prevent Jews from becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence that IMHO could be a result of readers thinking that what you have posted about me here is supportive.
Lou
This is the end of the 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.