![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:07
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2014, at 0:12:02
Please do block me, dr bob. If you don't this will probably be brought up for years. Block me a week for every one of my posts Lou objects to. Double it if you wish. Don't worry about the one year cap. Don't hesitate to go all the way back to 2001.
It would be nice if once you appeased Lou with my blocks, you asked Lou not to ever mention me again in terms of fostering anti semetism. Or in any other negative way.
That would make me far happier than being able to post and having to read over and over again Lou's charges towards me.
Posted by 10derheart on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:07
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2014, at 21:02:59
>> It would be nice if once you appeased Lou with my blocks, you asked Lou not to ever mention me again in terms of fostering anti semetism. Or in any other negative way.
>> That would make me far happier than being able to post and having to read over and over again Lou's charges towards me.
Me too. That is exactly what I want and I have given it a LOT of thought.
The trouble is, Dinah, that I have recently found out that accusing us over and over and over of colluding, collaborating and whatever else with Dr. Bob to create an environment friendly to antisemitism and possibly dangerous to the very lives of Jews is, in fact **not** an accusation, but a sign of anxiety. ??????????????
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066919.html
<<<<<< interruption for stunned silence>>>>>>
So, since it's just anxiety, it can't be negative toward you, so why should he ask Lou to stop showing signs of anxiety? It's a MH board - he can't. Convenient!
and p.s. to anyone who still gives a crap...I am not and was never anyone's f*ck*ng pilot, copilot, or any other crewmember of any f*ck*ng plane with Dr. Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:08
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2014, at 21:02:59
> Please do block me, dr bob. If you don't this will probably be brought up for years. Block me a week for every one of my posts Lou objects to. Double it if you wish. Don't worry about the one year cap. Don't hesitate to go all the way back to 2001.
>
> It would be nice if once you appeased Lou with my blocks, you asked Lou not to ever mention me again in terms of fostering anti semetism. Or in any other negative way.
>
> That would make me far happier than being able to post and having to read over and over again Lou's charges towards me.Friends,
How is anti-Semitism fostered in a community? And how can the arm of hate be revealed?
It is plainly visible here right now that defamation posted toward me is agreed by Mr. Hsiung to be uncivil. But the issue now is why is it allowed to stand without Mr. Hsiung posting his tag-line, "Please be civil", or go to a block, to those defamatory statements against me.
The distinction between him posting his tag-line and him saying that I can post a link to his agreeing that the defamation toward me is uncivil, could lead a subset of readers to think that there are two standards here. One to be used toward me, and another to be used toward his previous deputies and other posters that post defamation against me. The one used against me blocks me from posting, and the other allows the previous deputies and those posters posting defamation against me that is allowed to stand without the tag-line to be civil from Mr. Hsuing, to continue to post here as can be seen now as no warning to be civil is posted *by Mr. Hsiung* linking to those statements in question. He says that he posted that the defamation against me is uncivil but not to the statement in the thread where it appears. That he agrees to, could allow a subset of readers that do not read this thread to consider the defamatory charge against my character to be not against the rules because there is no sanction posted to the statement in question in the thread where it is originally posted and Mr. Hsiung says that if a statement is not sanctioned, it is not against his rules.
Friends, I am not a disturbed person. That accusation is not only false, it is defamatory per se and is allowed to stand without the tag-line from Mr. Hsiung to be civil. What this could mean to a subset of jurists, is that by Mr. Hsiung not using his standard to sanction that statement against my character, he could be seen as validating the libel against me as if he posted the defamation himself. And those jurists could have a rational basis to think such because I am trying to stop anti-Semitic statements here from being seen as civil, so if there are posters being allowed to decrease the respect regard and confidence in which I am held by being allowed to post defamation toward me being allowed to be seen as civil, then that could increase the idea here that anti-Semitism posted here without sanction Will Be Good For This Community As a Whole, for Mr. Hsiung says that his overriding rationale for anything here is that whatever it is being allowed, it will be good for this community as a whole And To Try To Trust Him At That. Friends, that statement is nothing new. It can be seen in a document against the Jews that I am prevented from posting here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. This keeps readers from being informed by me of the content of that document and could persuade readers to think that anti-Semitism posted here, and defamation posted against me as a Jew here trying to stop anti-Semitic statements from being seen as supportive here, will be good for this community as a whole. A subset of readers, such as those whose minds are altered by the drugs advocated here by psychiatry, and those drugs could induce hostility and aggression and suicide, could act out in murdering those that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowed to be seen as scapegaots and being allowed to have their character defamed without Mr. Hsiung or a deputy posting their tag-line to be civil. The statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} that can be seen as civil here because there is not the tag-line to be civil posted to it, can go on and on to induce hatred toward the Jews and others as the statement puts down Jews and others that are not Christians. For the statement is analogous to {No Jew will enter heaven} or, {Only Christians will enter heaven}. The deputies of record as far as I can see, could have sanctioned that statement if they wanted to because it is listed as a function by them in the TOS here.
My friends, the statement that says that no Jew will enter heaven being allowed to stand without a sanction posted to it to be civil, is a claim that has for centuries to foster anti-Semitic hate and cause millions of deaths to Jews and others. But I am Jew and have been brought up to the top of the mountain and I overlooked the Promised Land. And I saw the Glory of the Lord and I saw those that were tortured and murdered by those that said that they were the only ones that will enter heaven. And a Rider on a white horse appeared and said to me, "Go seek the lost sheep that are led astray and I will be with you always, even to the end. Many will try to stop you but be of good cheer, for as I have overcome the world and death, and so shall you also overcome and enter The Promised Land. And take no thought for those that say that they have a free pass to enter the Promised Land because they were in a group that said that only them can enter heaven. For I will say to them, depart from me, you workers of inequity."
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:08
In reply to yes please, me, too » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on June 27, 2014, at 4:18:19
Ok then. I'd prefer never to be able to post here and not have to read about Lou's anxiety that I foster anti semetism.
Dr Bob can word it however he likes.
Of course what I'll get is never posting here *and* reading Lou's anxieties about my willful fostering of anti semetism.
At least when I left a church because they prayed over me after I stood up against the idea of replacement theology, they likely forgot all about me. So I get prayed over as a heretic by a fairly progressive Christian church for standing up for Judaism. And made the object of anxiety on a consistent basis on babble for fostering anti semetism.
It is a wonder-full world.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:08
In reply to Re: yes please, me, too » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on June 27, 2014, at 10:48:40
> Ok then. I'd prefer never to be able to post here and not have to read about Lou's anxiety that I foster anti semetism.
>
> Dr Bob can word it however he likes.
>
> Of course what I'll get is never posting here *and* reading Lou's anxieties about my willful fostering of anti semetism.
>
> At least when I left a church because they prayed over me after I stood up against the idea of replacement theology, they likely forgot all about me. So I get prayed over as a heretic by a fairly progressive Christian church for standing up for Judaism. And made the object of anxiety on a consistent basis on babble for fostering anti semetism.
>
> It is a wonder-full world.Friends,
It is written here,[...willful fostering of anti sem(i)tism...].
Let us look at this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060690.html
Now it is also written here that notifications go to all of the deputies and that any reply is to be considered to come from all of them, even if there is no reply, for no reply is a reply that has great significance. It could be indifference or it could be deliberate indifference. Readers could make up their own mind about which to choose.
But Mr. Hsiung states that he responds to notifications but gives himself the option to respond or not to mine. He says that it will be good for him and the community as a whole to not respond to those requests from me that can be seen openly and in the reminders posted by me and in other cases that can not be seen, yet.
In order for that to be carried out here, the deputies would also havde to ignore my requests and notifications or else Mr Hsiung could not leave my requests outstanding because a deputy could also respond to a notification {if they wanted to}.
This is the crux of one of the issues here, which is,{why are there years of outstanding notifications before Mr. Hsiung says that he revised his own policy?, (secretly because there is not a post alerting readers to such a change in policy by him before he did it). There could be a subset of jurists that consider what he has done in regards to his policy as constituting {ex-post facto) for malicious reasons carried out by his deputies of record. And those same set of jurists could think that the reason is to foster and develop and encourage anti-Semitic hate to be posted here and be allowed to not be processed by his own policy to post his tag-line to be civil and post what rule is broken. Instead, being left to stand without the tag-line to be civil posted to the statement in the thread where it is posted means that he does not consider those anti-Semitic statements to be against his rules.
But I see it and others could see it also. And we as a people could go to The Promised Land because it is promised to us and no person, even a psychiatrist and his deputies allowing the statement to be seen as civil here that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} will replace that covenant to the Jews from the God that they cherish and give service and worship to.
And for all of you that want to leave because I am trying to bring those that had a hand in leaving anti-Semitic statements here to be seen as supportive to post a repudiation to that kind of hate, I say to you that we as a people will sit down with Abraham Issac and Jacob in The Kingdom of God and dwell in the house of the Lord forever and your leaving anti-Semitic hate here to be seen as will be good for this community as a whole could find yourselves in the same fate as your predecessors that promulgated the same hate.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:08
In reply to Lou's response-gudphor » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 27, 2014, at 12:09:07
Thank you for protecting babble from the evil brought to babble by myself. I will keep your input in mind in my future dealings with those of your background.
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response-gudphor » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 27, 2014, at 13:05:39
Just curious is it always the past that is discussed here? Does Lou know there are no more Deputies at least neither Dinah or l0derHeart? If they are no longer Deputies they do not hold a volunteer position here so how can they be held responsible for anything. The past is the past. Lou time to move forward okay? Phillipa
Posted by 10derheart on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:09
In reply to Re: Ummm?, posted by Phillipa on June 27, 2014, at 22:30:27
Good luck with that. Been there, written that, doesn't matter. Nothing matters. See every post Lou's way or you are wrong. No opinions but Lou's are accurate. Nothing to be done. It's sad, really.
You are nice to try but I'm afraid it's like spitting into a hurricane.
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:09
In reply to Re: Ummm? » Phillipa, posted by 10derheart on June 28, 2014, at 1:54:52
I tried.Do you remember when he wrote on hear of music in his head that won't go away? From a med. Maybe that is one reason? Just a stab in the dark. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:21:49
In reply to yes please, me, too » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on June 28, 2014, at 22:07:07
> The trouble is, Dinah, that I have recently found out that accusing us over and over and over of colluding, collaborating and whatever else with Dr. Bob to create an environment friendly to antisemitism and possibly dangerous to the very lives of Jews is, in fact **not** an accusation, but a sign of anxiety. ??????????????
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1066919.html
>
> <<<<<< interruption for stunned silence>>>>>>
>
> So, since it's just anxiety, it can't be negative toward you, so why should he ask Lou to stop showing signs of anxiety? It's a MH board - he can't. Convenient!And perhaps inconvenient for those who see him as accusatory.
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2014, at 22:56:12
In reply to Re: Convenience, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:21:49
So a private thread between you and Lou? Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on June 28, 2014, at 23:45:50
In reply to Re: Convenience » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2014, at 22:56:12
i think he might be trying to keep it on topic :)
Posted by Partlycloudy on June 30, 2014, at 9:01:29
In reply to Re: Convenience, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2014, at 22:21:49
Yes. I long ago disengaged because I felt the topic was not what was really the subject, if that makes sense.
And also that I was not able to contribute in a helpful way.
PC
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 30, 2014, at 11:25:57
In reply to Re: Convenience » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on June 30, 2014, at 9:01:29
> Yes. I long ago disengaged because I felt the topic was not what was really the subject, if that makes sense.
> And also that I was not able to contribute in a helpful way.
> PC
PC
You wrote,[...I was not able to contribute in a helpful way...].
I am unsure as to what you want readers to think here by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the follwing, then I could post my response to you.
A. If you did post what you would have wanted to, if you were going to post, why would what you would have posted not been helpful?
B. If you did not want to post because of what you would have posted would not be helpful, what subset of readers would what you would have posted be un helpful to?
C. Could you have posted something that could have been helpful to the Jews?
Lou
Posted by Partlycloudy on June 30, 2014, at 12:29:52
In reply to Lou's request-ehyhellpphulwhey » Partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on June 30, 2014, at 11:25:57
> > Yes. I long ago disengaged because I felt the topic was not what was really the subject, if that makes sense.
> > And also that I was not able to contribute in a helpful way.
> > PC
> PC
> You wrote,[...I was not able to contribute in a helpful way...].
> I am unsure as to what you want readers to think here by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the follwing, then I could post my response to you.
> A. If you did post what you would have wanted to, if you were going to post, why would what you would have posted not been helpful?
> B. If you did not want to post because of what you would have posted would not be helpful, what subset of readers would what you would have posted be un helpful to?
> C. Could you have posted something that could have been helpful to the Jews?
> Lou
>Lou, I don't think I can contribute anything helpful at this time to your discussion. So my answer is D, none of the above.
Thanks for respecting my wishes in not including me in the discussion.
PC
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.