![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 451 to 475 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2014, at 15:14:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2014, at 3:58:53
> > > The aspect of that you want me to post a repudiation to the first part is something that I do not think is my responsibility to do.
> >
> > OK, I posted my response.
>
> And deleted it when I saw it was on the Medication board, not the Faith board. And that redirecting it had come up, and that I'd already posted a PBC.
>
> --
>
> > > Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
>
> > There we have what could be thought by a subset of readers as me being pressured by the poster to adopt another faith. And also a subset of readers could think that Judaism is being put down, and that I am being put down for being a Jew, as Judaism is unable to grant a Jew to be saved, for the poster states to save myself first by converting to Christianity.
>
> I see what you're saying, but IMO that wasn't pressure to adopt another faith or a put-down of Judaism. For one thing, Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more, frequently.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...For one thing, Christian people may also convert to Judaism just as, or even more, frequently...].
You wrote that in your response to that I wrote:
[...a subset of readers could think that Judaism is being put down...as Judaism is unable to grant a Jew to be saved...].
Here we have the member posting to me to save myself first by converting to Christianity. The idea of {telling a person to *convert* to a religion} can be different from telling one to {*join* a faith-based group}. *Joining* a faith-based group could done by people of no faith, but {converting} implies that one is to change from the faith that they have to the faith that they are being told to take on. The difference here is that I am told to convert to Christianity to save myself, could imply:
A. That I am not saved
B. That changing, or converting, to Christianity offers me a way to be saved that Judaism does not
C. That it could be thought that what the poster writes could mean that Judaism does not lead to salvation but Christianity does.
D. That since the poster did not define what {saved} means here, he could have meant that I could suffer in burning fire for ever and ever, after I die, because Jews can not be saved from The Wrath of God as put forth by popular Christiandom in what they foster as the doctrine of hell, that consigns Jews to eternal torment in flames because they did not convert to Christianity. This is because the poster states to me that not only am I to convert first to save myself, but I am to convert to Christianity, which is greatly different from just converting. This is because he does not define what conversion entails , nor as to what branch of Christiandom thinking the conversion is to be to.
This, then, could mean that a subset of readers could think that the conversion to Christianity that I am being told to do, could be *any* branch of Christianity. And there are branches of Christianity that your prohibitions to me here prevent me from posting about, yet they exist today.
The question is if the statement in question puts down Judaism. {Putting down} is a phrase that has generally accepted meanings to it. The key in determining as to if a statements {puts down} something is to see if the statement criticizes, or ridicules, or insults, or degrades, or dehumanizes, or humiliates, or falsely discredits, lowers the esteem, or leads one to think that what is being put down is inferior to what is in comparison. Looking at what you say does not {put down} Judaism, could mean that you are saying that when the poster tells me to convert to Christianity to be saved, that all of those things that are generally accepted to constitute {putting down} can not be seen in his statement to me here. Yet it is plainly visible that the poster is telling me to {convert} to Christianity to {be saved}. If I was already saved, or if I could be saved by not converting to Christianity and remain a Jew, then could the poster have told me to convert to Christianity? How could that make sense? If the poster wants to post here how that could make sense, then I could post my response to him. Yet in my response, I would need to post what you have prohibited me to post, since it would come from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. Yet today, this poster can post the Christian perspective in telling me to convert to Christianity to be saved. You say that, in part, Christians convert to Judaism {just as, or even more, frequently}. As to if that is true or not, it does not annul the fact of what the poster tells me to do. And anyway, your claim to that is unsubstantiated here and if you want to post a link to substantiate your claim, you could do so now and I will have the opportunity to respond accordingly. If you are using your claim to justify allowing the post to be considered by you to not put down Judaism, then if your claim is false, could there be no justification for you to allow the statement in question to be seen as supportive?
I would really like to see where you got this claim. For Jews do not seek converts in the manner that Christian groups do, and I know of only a few Jewish sects that even honor conversions and only if they are done in a strict compliance to Jewish law. In fact, many conversions to Judaism are for purposes of marriage which many branches of Judaism do not accept. To say that conversions to Judaism by Christians is done as, or even more frequently, than Jews converting to Christianity as any basis to allow what when I read the statement in question I feel put down, and if your claim is false, then I am asking you to take this opportunity to post a refutation of your claim and accept the fact that I feel put down as a Jew when I read not only the statement in question, but also when I read that the statement is not sanctioned in part because of your claim here which I am asking for you to validate.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2014, at 9:22:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2014, at 14:29:26
> > In the post in question, the poster telling me to save myself first by converting to Christianity from Judaism has many {implications}.One implication is that since I am a Jew, that Judaism does not lead to being saved and that Christianity does.
>
> I see that not as an implication, but as jumping to a conclusion. Since he just said you, not all Jews.
>
> > {pressure } is defined more than one way. One way is by repeated questioning or repeated statements, but another is by what any consequences could be to the recipient if they do not do what is said for the subject person to do. An example hypothetically could be if one poster tells another poster that they are to convert to Christianity or they will not be saved. The {consequences} of not being saved could be considered by a subset of readers to be {pressuring} the subject person.
>
> That's a good point, but he didn't mention any consequences.
>
> > > I agree, it wasn't sensitive to your feelings
>
> > That alone could be a way to post a repudiation in the thread where the post appears.
>
> It turns out that's this thread. :-) So let's move on?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that you do not see that as an implication.
The statement in question tells me to convert to Christianity first to be saved. An {implication} is what can be {deduced} from what is in the statement that is not directly written.
Now let us look at what can, or can not, be deduced from what can be seen.
A. That Judaism is a faith that can not lead to salvation. Can this be deduced from what the statement writes?
The aspect that one is told to {convert} from Judaism to Christianity to be saved is what is written. Since the poster does not specify what {saved} means, then the generally accepted understanding of when one tells a Jew to convert to Christianity to be saved, is to be saved from The Wrath of God. This is generally understood to mean there is reference to the doctrine of hell promulgated by mainstream Christianity, where Jews and others that do not convert to Christianity are consigned after death for all eternity to be in flames and agony of being burnt in conscience torment in excruciating pain forever. That is the {consequences} that could be deduced from the statement in question that is the implied {pressure}.
Now the {putting down} of Judaism is by the comparison of Judaism with Christianity in that a subset of readers could think that Judaism is an inferior faith because a Jew can not be saved unless they convert to Christianity which can be deduced by the fact that the statement says to convert to Christianity to be saved. Now you say that [...I see that not as an implication...]. But there could be a subset of readers that do see it as an implication, those that do see it as an implication such as me, and your rule is to not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down. Your rule is not that posters are not to post what you feel put down about.
A question becomes then as to if a reasonable reader could deduce from the statement that it puts down Judaism. I consider myself a reasonable reader here and can deduce that the statement says that Judaism is inferior to Christianity on the basis that the statement says for me, as a Jew, to save myself first by converting to Christianity. That does jump to a conclusion that the poster is saying that I am not saved as you admit here. But it is also saying by implication that Judaism is a faith that those people embracing that faith can not be saved, which a subset of readers could consider to be putting down Judaism, for the statement says that I as a Jew am to convert to Christianity to be saved, which can induce the thinking of a reasonable reader to think that is a *condition* for myself and other Jews to be saved also. If you think otherwise, I invite you now to post here your rationale and I could have the opportunity to respond to what you post to me.
But it is much more than that here. By the fact that the statement is not sanctioned, a subset of readers could think that you are validating what the statement could purport about Judaism as you state that unsanctioned post have statements in them that are not against your rules. I am asking that you post to that post (directly to the text} so that the statement is linked by your post to show that you repudiate what the statement could purport about Judaism which could reverse any thinking that you are ratifying the libel against the Jews in the statement, for there can be a subset of readers that see it as I do, and see it as putting down Judaism on the basis of what the generally accepted meaning of putting down means in that those readers could think that the statement says that Judaism is inferior to Christianity on the basis that it could be deduced from what is written. It is my position here that if there is not a repudiation directly to the text by you, then a subset of readers could think that you are ratifying the put down of Judaism as those readers could see. This could encourage more defamatory statements about Judaism and allow you and the poster to develop more and more defamatory postings because that since there is no sanction to the statement directly, others could think that it is supportive and the poster of the statement could continue with analogous statements. This IMHO could create a community of acceptance for hatred toward Jews and could recruit young people that are vulnerable to propaganda against Jews and create a foundation for real-world hatred of Jews.
As to going on, you could choose from the many offered posts in this thread by me. One of which is the post that has the link to Matthew 27 and the verses that I cite as putting down Jews.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2014, at 23:12:34
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-huzimp » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2014, at 9:22:48
> As to going on, you could choose from the many offered posts in this thread by me. One of which is the post that has the link to Matthew 27 and the verses that I cite as putting down Jews.
Could you do me a favor and post a link? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2014, at 12:57:26
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2014, at 23:12:34
> > As to going on, you could choose from the many offered posts in this thread by me. One of which is the post that has the link to Matthew 27 and the verses that I cite as putting down Jews.
>
> Could you do me a favor and post a link? Thanks,
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Here is a link to another post that has statements that put down Jews, which are antisemitic statements that I would like to discuss before I post the link to the post that has the link to Matthew 27.
Lou Pilder
The poster offers links and it is the last link offered as John 5. The verses that put down Jews that I would like for you to post a repudiation are in particular but not limited to:
verses 18,23,38,and 42
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2014, at 22:26:59
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozdr » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2014, at 12:57:26
> The poster offers links and it is the last link offered as John 5. The verses that put down Jews that I would like for you to post a repudiation are in particular but not limited to:
> verses 18,23,38,and 42
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.htmlYes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2014, at 13:21:11
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2014, at 22:26:59
> > The poster offers links and it is the last link offered as John 5. The verses that put down Jews that I would like for you to post a repudiation are in particular but not limited to:
> > verses 18,23,38,and 42
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
>
> Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39...].
That does not annul the fact that the other verses that put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, show to the reader. And in the one, it insults Islamic people also and others that do not accept the claim concerning the son.
The verses that show are in the link and whatever is in a link is directly to the text. Your rule states not to post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it, *period*. A subset of readers could think that you used the word {period} to show that there is not an exception to your posted prohibition to not post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it.
If the poster wanted to only post to verse 39, they could have posted only 39. I think that there could be a subset of Jewish and other readers that see that the other verses could foster anti-Semitic feelings and arouse hatred toward the Jews, and feel put down when they read them, for I feel put down when I read them. And your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or jump to a conclusion about others and to be sensitive to the feelings of others {even if you are quoting someone else}, even if the statements are in the bible, and not put down those of other faiths, for being supportive takes precedence.
You say that one match could start a forest fire, and you are correct in that. And you say that you do not wait to put out the fire. As long as those verses that could foster antisemitic feelings are standing un repudiated by you, the fire of hate could still spread. This is because what is not sanctioned is considered by you that the statements in the unsanctioned post are not breaking your rules. And statements that do not break the rules could be considered to be supportive by you because you state that being supportive takes precedence. This is how historically a way for anti-Semitism could be fostered in a community. Your prohibitions to me prevent me from posting about that here so that I can not post my own repudiation to what the statements in question could purport.
What the verses that I have asked for you to post a repudiation to here, in that a subset of readers could think that they are anti-Semitic and not supportive and are not in accordance to your rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, if not repudiated could allow all other posters to post links with anti-Semitic content in then when your rule is to not post links that have anything in them that are not in accordance with your rules because what is in the link is directly to the text. By you leaving the statements in this post in question post un repudiated, a subset of readers such as Jewish children, could feel humiliation and ridicule and think that the forum allows the fostering of anti-Semitism. And worse, they could also think that you are orchestrating the hatred toward the Jews that could be seen in the depiction of the Jews in the verses in question, by saying that the poster was linking to only one verse in the passage that was posted in its entirety. I do not think that immunizes the statements in question as supportive or that they will be good for this community as a whole. But you are using that tactic that others historically have used to arouse hatred toward the Jews by allowing third-party posters to have impunity to post anti-Semitic statements.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2014, at 18:38:50
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-grndnky » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2014, at 13:21:11
> > > The poster offers links and it is the last link offered as John 5. The verses that put down Jews that I would like for you to post a repudiation are in particular but not limited to:
> > > verses 18,23,38,and 42
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> >
> > Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39...].
> That does not annul the fact that the other verses that put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, show to the reader. And in the one, it insults Islamic people also and others that do not accept the claim concerning the son.
> The verses that show are in the link and whatever is in a link is directly to the text. Your rule states not to post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it, *period*. A subset of readers could think that you used the word {period} to show that there is not an exception to your posted prohibition to not post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it.
> If the poster wanted to only post to verse 39, they could have posted only 39. I think that there could be a subset of Jewish and other readers that see that the other verses could foster anti-Semitic feelings and arouse hatred toward the Jews, and feel put down when they read them, for I feel put down when I read them. And your rule is to not post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused or jump to a conclusion about others and to be sensitive to the feelings of others {even if you are quoting someone else}, even if the statements are in the bible, and not put down those of other faiths, for being supportive takes precedence.
> You say that one match could start a forest fire, and you are correct in that. And you say that you do not wait to put out the fire. As long as those verses that could foster antisemitic feelings are standing un repudiated by you, the fire of hate could still spread. This is because what is not sanctioned is considered by you that the statements in the unsanctioned post are not breaking your rules. And statements that do not break the rules could be considered to be supportive by you because you state that being supportive takes precedence. This is how historically a way for anti-Semitism could be fostered in a community. Your prohibitions to me prevent me from posting about that here so that I can not post my own repudiation to what the statements in question could purport.
> What the verses that I have asked for you to post a repudiation to here, in that a subset of readers could think that they are anti-Semitic and not supportive and are not in accordance to your rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, if not repudiated could allow all other posters to post links with anti-Semitic content in then when your rule is to not post links that have anything in them that are not in accordance with your rules because what is in the link is directly to the text. By you leaving the statements in this post in question post un repudiated, a subset of readers such as Jewish children, could feel humiliation and ridicule and think that the forum allows the fostering of anti-Semitism. And worse, they could also think that you are orchestrating the hatred toward the Jews that could be seen in the depiction of the Jews in the verses in question, by saying that the poster was linking to only one verse in the passage that was posted in its entirety. I do not think that immunizes the statements in question as supportive or that they will be good for this community as a whole. But you are using that tactic that others historically have used to arouse hatred toward the Jews by allowing third-party posters to have impunity to post anti-Semitic statements.
> Never again.
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
Here is another anti-Semitic post that I am asking for you to purge by posting what readers could see to repudiates what is in the statement about the Jews. Let us look at the post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
Here we have that you join the poster in what a subset of readers could think in that you are validating what is posted by saying,[...That's good...]. But your rule is not to post what could put down those of other faiths. And a generally accepted meaning of the phrase to put down is that if a comparison could be seen, the comparison depreciates or implies that one is inferior to the other.
Here we have Judaism contrasted with Christianity by the poster stating that the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And your rule is that it doesn't matter if what is posted is what the poster believes, for if it is not supportive, it should not be posted because being supportive takes precedence. A subset of readers such as Jewish readers could think that the contrast not only puts down Judaism by implying that Judaism lacks grace and truth, but that Christianity is superior to Judaism because it does have grace and truth. This also could be thought that Judaism is false, and that Christianity is true. And since Judaism rejects that claim of Christianity, a Jewish reader could not only feel put down, but could feel humiliation and ridicule because what can be seen could be a ratification by you by saying that it is good, that it is good for the poster to believe it so that these readers could think unless you post further, that you are saying that Judaism is bad, since Christianity is good according to that you said,[...that's good...]. These readers could also think that you are {in concert} with the poster as what could lead a Jewish poster to feel put down is not sanctioned and your rules state that unsanctioned posts have statements that are not against your rules.
By the poster being allowed to post with impunity could further lead to the fostering of anti-Semitism here. For others could also post analogous statements against Jews with impunity by the precedent set.
I am prevented from posting a repudiation of the post in the manner that I need to, due to the prohibitions posted to me here by you. Yet today, a subset of readers could think that this site allows anti-Semitism to be fostered by the nature that the leader posts his tag-line as that he thinks it is good as to what is posted about the Jews. That could lead to encouragement for others to post other anti-Semitic statements and think that the forum could be a portal for anti-Semitic expression.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2014, at 1:15:49
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-grndnky » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2014, at 13:21:11
> > Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
>
> The verses that show are in the link and whatever is in a link is directly to the text. Your rule states not to post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it, *period*.That's true. Maybe I assumed there wouldn't be anti-Semitic statements on that page.
How about if we move on?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2014, at 13:04:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2014, at 1:15:49
> > > Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
> >
> > The verses that show are in the link and whatever is in a link is directly to the text. Your rule states not to post a link that has anti-Semitic statements in it, *period*.
>
> That's true. Maybe I assumed there wouldn't be anti-Semitic statements on that page.
>
> How about if we move on?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Maybe I assumed there wouldn't be anti-Semitic statements on that page...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think, if anything, from what you wrote.
If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. Do you think that you have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to see if what is in a posted link here is in accordance with your rules here?
B. There could be another reason that I did not sanction the post for the anti-Semitic statements because I wrote that {maybe} I assumed that there were not.
C. redacted by respondent
D. The anti-Semitic statements could put down Jews and you as a Jew here, Lou, and lower the opinion of you here because I am allowing the statements to stand which could mean that a subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive by me and not against my rules.
E. I agree with you, Lou, that there is not any exception to allow statements that could put down Jews and will post something that repudiates the statements to show that the statements that are anti-Semitic are not supportive and they are not in accordance with my rule to not post links that have anti-Semitic statements, period.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2014, at 21:38:53
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhepue » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2014, at 13:04:59
> A. Do you think that you have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to see if what is in a posted link here is in accordance with your rules here?
True. Maybe I was irresponsible in that case.
> B. There could be another reason that I did not sanction the post for the anti-Semitic statements because I wrote that {maybe} I assumed that there were not.
True. There could be, I'm not sure, it was a long time ago.
> D. The anti-Semitic statements could put down Jews and you as a Jew here, Lou, and lower the opinion of you here because I am allowing the statements to stand which could mean that a subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive by me and not against my rules.
I don't know. I haven't read them carefully.
> E. I agree with you, Lou, that there is not any exception to allow statements that could put down Jews and will post something that repudiates the statements to show that the statements that are anti-Semitic are not supportive and they are not in accordance with my rule to not post links that have anti-Semitic statements, period.
True, there isn't any exception in the FAQ. False, I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2014, at 9:49:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2014, at 21:38:53
> > A. Do you think that you have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to see if what is in a posted link here is in accordance with your rules here?
>
> True. Maybe I was irresponsible in that case.
>
> > B. There could be another reason that I did not sanction the post for the anti-Semitic statements because I wrote that {maybe} I assumed that there were not.
>
> True. There could be, I'm not sure, it was a long time ago.
>
> > D. The anti-Semitic statements could put down Jews and you as a Jew here, Lou, and lower the opinion of you here because I am allowing the statements to stand which could mean that a subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive by me and not against my rules.
>
> I don't know. I haven't read them carefully.
>
> > E. I agree with you, Lou, that there is not any exception to allow statements that could put down Jews and will post something that repudiates the statements to show that the statements that are anti-Semitic are not supportive and they are not in accordance with my rule to not post links that have anti-Semitic statements, period.
>
> True, there isn't any exception in the FAQ. False, I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived...].
The grammatical structure of your statement could lead a subset of readers to think that you are reneging on the terms and conditions that we agreed on for this discussion on the basis that you are saying that you have a justification for not posting a repudiation to a post here that has anti-Semitic statements which is that the post in in the archives.
But the post here was also in the archives.
I would like for you to post any difference between the two posts as that you did post some sort of repudiation to the one and you are now saying that you are justified to not post a repudiation to the other because it is in the archives where the other post was in the archives. If you could post your rationale, if any, for the posting of a repudiation to the one and not the other, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Here is the link to the post where you did post a repudiation and it was in the archives.
[ faith, 1050644 ]
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2014, at 3:01:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jmpbkihndahaly » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2014, at 9:49:55
> > I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived.
>
> The grammatical structure of your statement could lead a subset of readers to think that you are reneging on the terms and conditions that we agreed on for this discussion on the basis that you are saying that you have a justification for not posting a repudiation to a post here that has anti-Semitic statements which is that the post in in the archives.
> But the post here was also in the archives.
> I would like for you to post any difference between the two posts as that you did post some sort of repudiation to the one and you are now saying that you are justified to not post a repudiation to the other because it is in the archives where the other post was in the archives. If you could post your rationale, if any, for the posting of a repudiation to the one and not the other, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.There, I wanted to repudiate my earlier post, to clarify the guidelines. Here, I haven't posted anything I feel should be corrected.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2014, at 9:24:23
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 21, 2014, at 3:01:58
> > > I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived.
> >
> > The grammatical structure of your statement could lead a subset of readers to think that you are reneging on the terms and conditions that we agreed on for this discussion on the basis that you are saying that you have a justification for not posting a repudiation to a post here that has anti-Semitic statements which is that the post in in the archives.
> > But the post here was also in the archives.
> > I would like for you to post any difference between the two posts as that you did post some sort of repudiation to the one and you are now saying that you are justified to not post a repudiation to the other because it is in the archives where the other post was in the archives. If you could post your rationale, if any, for the posting of a repudiation to the one and not the other, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> There, I wanted to repudiate my earlier post, to clarify the guidelines. Here, I haven't posted anything I feel should be corrected.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Here I haven't posted anything I feel should be corrected...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as to why a post being archived that you say that you have not posted anything that you feel should be corrected.
In order to understand this I am asking that we examine the following two posts where you posted a repudiation {to what the post could purport as being anti-Semitic in that what is posted could be read by a subset of readers as putting down Jews.}
Lou Pilder
Here are the two posts. I need to know what the difference is in these two from the post that you say you will not post a repudiation to because it has been archived, for both of these are in the archives and there was discussion between us on the admin board concerning the statements in question and you posted,[...it would be more civil to say..] which is a repudiation of what the statement in question says as that by you saying it would be more civil, the original statement in question could not be in accordance with your rules here as being below the standard of acceptance to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive.
[faith, 1055722 ]
[faith, 1056834 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2014, at 10:37:36
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ekspoezph » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2014, at 9:24:23
> > > > I'm not going to post something now. Since that post's already been archived.
> > >
> > > The grammatical structure of your statement could lead a subset of readers to think that you are reneging on the terms and conditions that we agreed on for this discussion on the basis that you are saying that you have a justification for not posting a repudiation to a post here that has anti-Semitic statements which is that the post in in the archives.
> > > But the post here was also in the archives.
> > > I would like for you to post any difference between the two posts as that you did post some sort of repudiation to the one and you are now saying that you are justified to not post a repudiation to the other because it is in the archives where the other post was in the archives. If you could post your rationale, if any, for the posting of a repudiation to the one and not the other, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> >
> > There, I wanted to repudiate my earlier post, to clarify the guidelines. Here, I haven't posted anything I feel should be corrected.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...Here I haven't posted anything I feel should be corrected...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as to why a post being archived that you say that you have not posted anything that you feel should be corrected.
> In order to understand this I am asking that we examine the following two posts where you posted a repudiation {to what the post could purport as being anti-Semitic in that what is posted could be read by a subset of readers as putting down Jews.}
> Lou Pilder
> Here are the two posts. I need to know what the difference is in these two from the post that you say you will not post a repudiation to because it has been archived, for both of these are in the archives and there was discussion between us on the admin board concerning the statements in question and you posted,[...it would be more civil to say..] which is a repudiation of what the statement in question says as that by you saying it would be more civil, the original statement in question could not be in accordance with your rules here as being below the standard of acceptance to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive.
> [faith, 1055722 ]
> [faith, 1056834 ]Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote, [...There, I wanted to repudiate my earlier post, to clarify guidelines...]
Now in our discussion about this post that you say you will not post something now, you wrote,[...but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39...].
That could be seen IMHO by a subset of readers as that you were giving a {guideline} that gave immunity to the statements that put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, on the basis that verse 39 is highlighted. But that does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post links with anti-Semitic statements, period, so that there is not an exception to your rule.I see this as being about guidelines and about your earlier post so I do not see any difference at all and I would like for you to point out what I am missing, if I am missing anything about this here.
So what I am asking is that you post in the thread where the post appears so that readers could know that the antismitic statements are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and are not supportive and are not in accordance with several of your rules, such as to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, and that anti-Semitic statements are not supportive even if one is quoting someone else in a link. The statements that put down Jews in the post in question now can be seen unrepudiated by readers that IMHO could induce a mind-se in a subset of readers, that anti-Semitic statements are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of your community here and are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by the nature that you say that unsanctioned posts have statements in them that are not against your rules. This could IMHHHO create a community where the leader could be thought to be sponsoring hatred toward the Jews.
Never again.
Lou PIlder
[admin,1060775 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2014, at 10:42:55
In reply to Lou's reply- ehygenz » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2014, at 8:49:20
> > Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> > I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> > Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> > I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> > You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> > I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> > Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> > I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> > I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> > There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
>
> Pat,
> You wrote,[...I've never seen a post that would be against your heritage and religion...].
> Would this post be that I wrote a response to here?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060234.html
fayeroe,
Here is another post that could be seen by a subset of readers as putting down Jews, which constitutes anrtisemitic content here being seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by the nature that Mr Hsiung states that unsanctioned posts have content that is not against his rules, and then the statements could be considered to be supportive because he also states that being supportive takes precedence.
In this post, the author offers a link at the end of the post to John 5. The rule here by Mr Hsiung is to not post a link that has anti-Semitic content, period. That means that there are not exceptions. Yet today, the post stands unrepudiated so that a subset of readers could think that Mr Hsiung and all of the deputies of record then are validating what the statements could purport. That type of ratification that a subset of reads could think, could IMHO cause, let's say, a young Jewish person that came here in depression to go further into depression and kill themselves by the nature that they could feel humiliation and ridicule when they read the post, as being Jew. For verse #23 puts down not only Jews , but all other faiths that reject the honoring of the son, but do honor the Father.
Lou
Here is the link to the post in question:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2014, at 2:58:52
In reply to Lou's rply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psteytspon, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2014, at 10:37:36
> > Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
> That could be seen IMHO by a subset of readers as that you were giving a {guideline} that gave immunity to the statements that put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, on the basis that verse 39 is highlighted. But that does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post links with anti-Semitic statements, period, so that there is not an exception to your rule.
True, it could be seen that way by a subset of readers, and that's what my rule is, and there isn't any exception in the FAQ. Another issue with other sites is that content there can change without notice.
How about if we move on?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2014, at 10:30:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2014, at 2:58:52
> > > Yes, those verses are there, but the specific one she was linking to was verse 39.
>
> > That could be seen IMHO by a subset of readers as that you were giving a {guideline} that gave immunity to the statements that put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements, on the basis that verse 39 is highlighted. But that does not annul the fact that your rule is to not post links with anti-Semitic statements, period, so that there is not an exception to your rule.
>
> True, it could be seen that way by a subset of readers, and that's what my rule is, and there isn't any exception in the FAQ. Another issue with other sites is that content there can change without notice.
>
> How about if we move on?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...that's what my rule is...(not to post links with anti-Semitic statements , period)...]
Yet today, you ask, [...How about if we move on?...].
Moving on could mean that we leave the issue here of that the anti-Semitic statements in the post are allowed to stand by you, un repudiated by you, allowed to be seen as being good for this community as a whole by you, allowed to be seen as supportive by you, allowed to be seen as that the statements that put down Jews in the post are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community by you. Allowed to be seen to stand by you even though your rules say that anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths by you.
By you allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen by you in this manner, Jews could be depicted here by you allowing the statements to be seen as not against your rules, by a subset of readers as being allowed to be insulted and humiliated and ridiculed. This could induce the thinking in a subset of readers to inflict harm to Jews here and outside of this forum, for they could think that anti-Semitism is supportive and will be good for their community as a whole as it is in your community since you state that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2014, at 19:40:47
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-gudphoar » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2014, at 10:30:36
> Moving on could mean that we leave the issue here of that the anti-Semitic statements in the post are allowed to stand by you, un repudiated by you, allowed to be seen as being good for this community as a whole by you, allowed to be seen as supportive by you, allowed to be seen as that the statements that put down Jews in the post are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community by you. Allowed to be seen to stand by you even though your rules say that anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths by you.
> By you allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen by you in this manner, Jews could be depicted here by you allowing the statements to be seen as not against your rules, by a subset of readers as being allowed to be insulted and humiliated and ridiculed. This could induce the thinking in a subset of readers to inflict harm to Jews here and outside of this forum, for they could think that anti-Semitism is supportive and will be good for their community as a whole as it is in your community since you state that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.Yes, moving on could mean that for a subset of readers. My guess is the probability of that is low. How about if we move on?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2014, at 22:05:08
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2014, at 19:40:47
> > Moving on could mean that we leave the issue here of that the anti-Semitic statements in the post are allowed to stand by you, un repudiated by you, allowed to be seen as being good for this community as a whole by you, allowed to be seen as supportive by you, allowed to be seen as that the statements that put down Jews in the post are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community by you. Allowed to be seen to stand by you even though your rules say that anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths by you.
> > By you allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen by you in this manner, Jews could be depicted here by you allowing the statements to be seen as not against your rules, by a subset of readers as being allowed to be insulted and humiliated and ridiculed. This could induce the thinking in a subset of readers to inflict harm to Jews here and outside of this forum, for they could think that anti-Semitism is supportive and will be good for their community as a whole as it is in your community since you state that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> Yes, moving on could mean that for a subset of readers. My guess is the probability of that is low. How about if we move on?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that you are guessing that the probability of what could happen by you allowing the anti-Semitism in the post to stand un repudiated by you, could be "low".
The chances of something happening as a result by the nature of readers seeing that you are allowing antisemitic statements to be seen as supportive and civil, can not be ruled out according to what you wrote here as that the chances are "low". But even with low probability of something happening as a result of antisemitism posted un repudiated by you here is "low", that does not justify allowing anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive here by the nature that you state that if something is not sanctioned, it is not against your rules. This is because you have stated that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down or accuse another, and the probability of if something could happen as being low, is not in your rules to allow statements that could put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements. This is further stated by you that it is your thinking that if something is not supportive, that it should not be posted, for being supportive takes precedence.
But it is much more than that. You also state that even a small statement can lead one to feel put down or accused and that posters are to be civil at all times.
You say that you used guessing to write that the chances are small. This could mean to a subset of readers that you do not really know. But if you agree that a subset of readers could see the anti-Semitism unsanctioned by you and your deputies of record, that they could think that you are validating the hatred toward the Jews that the anti-Semitic statements could foster, then I say to you that you do know that at least there could be some readers to think that you are ratifying the insults to the Jews, and I do not think that those readers have to guess about that. For here is a reason why.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2014, at 22:01:16
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rvregyp » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2014, at 22:05:08
> > > Moving on could mean that we leave the issue here of that the anti-Semitic statements in the post are allowed to stand by you, un repudiated by you, allowed to be seen as being good for this community as a whole by you, allowed to be seen as supportive by you, allowed to be seen as that the statements that put down Jews in the post are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community by you. Allowed to be seen to stand by you even though your rules say that anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths by you.
> > > By you allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen by you in this manner, Jews could be depicted here by you allowing the statements to be seen as not against your rules, by a subset of readers as being allowed to be insulted and humiliated and ridiculed. This could induce the thinking in a subset of readers to inflict harm to Jews here and outside of this forum, for they could think that anti-Semitism is supportive and will be good for their community as a whole as it is in your community since you state that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole.
> >
> > Yes, moving on could mean that for a subset of readers. My guess is the probability of that is low. How about if we move on?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that you are guessing that the probability of what could happen by you allowing the anti-Semitism in the post to stand un repudiated by you, could be "low".
> The chances of something happening as a result by the nature of readers seeing that you are allowing antisemitic statements to be seen as supportive and civil, can not be ruled out according to what you wrote here as that the chances are "low". But even with low probability of something happening as a result of antisemitism posted un repudiated by you here is "low", that does not justify allowing anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive here by the nature that you state that if something is not sanctioned, it is not against your rules. This is because you have stated that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to sanction a statement that could put down or accuse another, and the probability of if something could happen as being low, is not in your rules to allow statements that could put down Jews, which are anti-Semitic statements. This is further stated by you that it is your thinking that if something is not supportive, that it should not be posted, for being supportive takes precedence.
> But it is much more than that. You also state that even a small statement can lead one to feel put down or accused and that posters are to be civil at all times.
> You say that you used guessing to write that the chances are small. This could mean to a subset of readers that you do not really know. But if you agree that a subset of readers could see the anti-Semitism unsanctioned by you and your deputies of record, that they could think that you are validating the hatred toward the Jews that the anti-Semitic statements could foster, then I say to you that you do know that at least there could be some readers to think that you are ratifying the insults to the Jews, and I do not think that those readers have to guess about that. For here is a reason why.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.htmlMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...How about if we move on...].
There are many posts already in this thread that you could choose from and if you would like another, here is one.
In this post, in the second line it reads,[..No non-Christian can...].
The statement insults not only Judaism, but Islam as well, and all other religions that are not Christian that can enter heaven according to their religion, by not being a Christian.
But it is much more than that. For your rules state that one is not to post what could be disrespectful to another religion. Yet today, this post stands un repudiated by you and your deputies of record then, and there could be a subset of readers that think that you and your deputies of record then, are validating the insult to Judaism and Islam and the other religions that are not Christian that have in their belief that they can go to heaven as not being a Christian.
I am asking you to post a repudiation in the thread where the post appears with something like:
[...please respect the faiths of others that are not Christian that include those people as that they have in their belief that they can go to heaven without being a Christian...]
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/612282.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2014, at 14:47:21
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nhonon, posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2014, at 22:01:16
> > No non-Christian will enter heaven.
> The statement insults not only Judaism, but Islam as well, and all other religions that are not Christian that can enter heaven according to their religion, by not being a Christian.
> But it is much more than that. For your rules state that one is not to post what could be disrespectful to another religion. Yet today, this post stands un repudiated by youI did remind her of the civility guidelines later in that thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/613321.html
Next?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 3, 2014, at 20:05:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2014, at 14:47:21
> > > No non-Christian will enter heaven.
>
> > The statement insults not only Judaism, but Islam as well, and all other religions that are not Christian that can enter heaven according to their religion, by not being a Christian.
> > But it is much more than that. For your rules state that one is not to post what could be disrespectful to another religion. Yet today, this post stands un repudiated by you
>
> I did remind her of the civility guidelines later in that thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/613321.html
>
> Next?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I did remind her of the civility guidelines later in that thread...].
Now I don't claim to be an "A" student, but I do not see what you wrote is relevant to that the statement in question could cause a subset of readers to feel humiliation and ridicule and shame when they read that their religion will not allow them into heaven as not being a Christian and that the statement is not sanctioned by you and your deputies of record then which could lead them to think that you are validating the insult toward Jews and Islamic people and all other religions that are not Christian that in their faith they can go to heaven without being a Christian. They could also think that you are leaving the insult unsanctioned so that it will be good for this community as a whole and that they could think that you are allowing a forest fire of hate to spread because you say that one match could start a forest fire.
I do not see that your reply annuls the fact that there is disrespect to Jews, Islamic people and others in that the statement precludes non-Christians from entering heaven and you are allowing it to stand un repudiated. Your statement, if it is a rationale by you to leave the insult to stand, does not address the insult but addresses a word in another post that is not allowed by you. The word is in a rule of yours to not post what could be language that could offend others as a vulgar word. That rule is disjoint from the rule of yours to not post what could be disrespectful to another's faith. And worse, you say that you reminded her of the civility guidelines. What you reminded her about was only one guideline, the guideline concerning vulgar words, for you to allow to stand un repudiated which is not what is in question in the statement that I am objecting to .
Your rule is to not post anything that is not supportive, for being supportive takes precedence. As long as you allow the statement in question to be un repudiated by you, readers could think that it is supportive here to insult other faiths that are not Christian that do have in their belief that they can enter heaven without being a Christian. This could lead a subset of readers to feel more depressed when they come here and go into deeper depression, for they could get feelings of inferiority by thinking that you and your deputies of record then are ratifying the insult to their God that can lead them to The Promised Land, to heaven. You will allow people to say that non-Christians can't, and that could lead a subset of readers to think that you as the community leader are validating a statement that could mean that Jews, could be precluded from entering heaven and it will be good for this community as a whole.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:45:12
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-valhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 3, 2014, at 20:05:38
> Now I don't claim to be an "A" student
Why not? I think you're one of the best students here. :-)
> but I do not see what you wrote is relevant to that the statement in question could cause a subset of readers to feel humiliation and ridicule and shame when they read that their religion will not allow them into heaven as not being a Christian and that the statement is not sanctioned by you and your deputies of record then which could lead them to think that you are validating the insult toward Jews and Islamic people and all other religions that are not Christian
It's indirectly relevant. IMO, by sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate their statements.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2014, at 7:58:15
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:45:12
> > Now I don't claim to be an "A" student
>
> Why not? I think you're one of the best students here. :-)
>
> > but I do not see what you wrote is relevant to that the statement in question could cause a subset of readers to feel humiliation and ridicule and shame when they read that their religion will not allow them into heaven as not being a Christian and that the statement is not sanctioned by you and your deputies of record then which could lead them to think that you are validating the insult toward Jews and Islamic people and all other religions that are not Christian
>
> It's indirectly relevant. IMO, by sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate their statements.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's indirectly relevant...I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate their statements...].
I do not see any such thing. The rule here is that what {could} be seen. And it could be seen that since the statement in question is not repudiated by you, that a subset of readers could think that you think that it is not against your rules. Now I do not know if there could be another subset of readers to agree with you. I think that they would have to {jump to a conclusion} to arrive at that, for you do say that you didn't {necessarily} validate the anti-Semitic statement as to what it could purport, but then, that means that you could be validating the hatred that the statement could purport toward Jews and Islamic people and all the other people that have in their religion a way to heaven that are not Christian.
It is the {could} that overrules the {will} in your TOS here. And if it {could}, then one match {could} start a forest fire regardless if the fire starter curses at the trees. For if there is a person cursing at the trees, that does not mean that they will start a fire. But if there is a person saying that Jews can not enter heaven because they are not Christians, and the leader of the community will not repudiate the claim, that could stoke the furnace of hatred toward Jews as the historical record shows.
Never again
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 22:47:31
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jmptukun » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2014, at 7:58:15
> > IMO, by sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate their statements.
>
> I do not see any such thing. The rule here is that what {could} be seen. And it could be seen that since the statement in question is not repudiated by you, that a subset of readers could think that you think that it is not against your rules. Now I do not know if there could be another subset of readers to agree with you.I do believe another subset of readers could agree with me.
Bob
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.