![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 107. Go back in thread:
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 21, 2002, at 5:58:55
In reply to Re: fun with numbers » christophrejmc, posted by Lou Pilder on May 20, 2002, at 21:56:37
Google found 91,100 results for dangerous drinking water, Lou.
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 6:53:20
In reply to drinking water danger: 91,100, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 21, 2002, at 5:58:55
Beadedlady,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion. could you clarify what conclusion you are trying to convey by stating that there are 91,100 results from Google when you key in dangerous drinking water?
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 7:09:12
In reply to Re: The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life » Lou Pilder, posted by Krazy Kat on May 20, 2002, at 18:21:29
Krazy Kat,
You wanted to know my philosophy about , it appears, terrot card readers . I do not give any credibility to terot card readers. Also, I am not a member of Christiandom.
What I have been telling here is what I have actually experianced. The Rider on the White Horse is not Christiandom's "Jesus". I am including these comments because you have made a refference to your parents being strict christians and I do not want any readers to think that I am a member of Christiandom.
Thank you for your interest,
Lou
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 21, 2002, at 9:09:08
In reply to Re: drinking water danger: 91,100 » BeARdEdLaDY, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 6:53:20
You were saying that Xanax is dangerous and using the number of results of a Google search to prove it. But that doesn't prove anything. According to Google, drinking water is dangerous, too--and way more web sites show drinking water and danger linked than Xanax and danger.
Xanax may be dangerous, but we have to be careful what information we take from the web--and what information we take out of context.
The benefits of Xanax to people like Kid A far outweigh the dangers. For you, however, Xanax might be a dangerous solution. We all try to do what's best for ourselves.
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 9:27:37
In reply to Re: drinking water danger: 91,100 » Lou Pilder, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 21, 2002, at 9:09:08
Beadedlady,
Your state that I was useing the number of results from a Google search to prove that Xanax is dangerous . I wrote: If you do a sesrch you will find some reports on the dangers of Xanax.
Could you clarify how that statement means that I was using "the number of results" to prove that Xanax is dangerous?
I would appreciate your response.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by kiddo on May 21, 2002, at 9:29:03
In reply to drinking water danger: 91,100, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 21, 2002, at 5:58:55
Hiya Beardy!
This is eerie, IMO. I guess what struck me was the 911 and how their worried that terrorists may do something to the water at some point.....
Just thinking-hmmm, think that's my problem? Maybe I should try not thinking and see what happens...could be my miracle cure...hehe
Kiddo
Posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 10:29:08
In reply to Lou's answer to Krazy Kat (more) » Krazy Kat, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 7:09:12
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 10:34:03
In reply to are you a member of any club? (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 10:29:08
Krazy Kat,
Could you clarify what you mean by "club"?
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 10:49:36
In reply to Re: are you a member of any club? » Krazy Kat, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 10:34:03
I'm sorry, Lou, I'm kind of joking. Still thinking of my favorite Groucho Marx line, "I won't be a member of any club that will have me."
Your philosophy sounds Very much like fundamental Christianty to me, Lou, still. But that's neither here nor there.
I just hope you'll be careful in your message re: meds - if I were to stop my stabilizer, I would be in serious danger of suicide again, and I don't think that is uncommon. We know these illnesses are organic now, and need medical support the same way a diabetic or heart patient does.
Take care.
- kk
Posted by Ron Hill on May 21, 2002, at 10:52:21
In reply to Lou's answer to Krazy Kat (more) » Krazy Kat, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 7:09:12
>The Rider on the White Horse is not Christiandom's "Jesus".
--------------------If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father.
-- Ron
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:17:53
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Krazy Kat (more) » Lou Pilder, posted by Ron Hill on May 21, 2002, at 10:52:21
Ron ,
You quoted , "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Father." Many times people have asked me if I "believe in Jesus". My answer is always, "Which one?" The Jesus of the Spainish Inquesition? The Jesus of Nazi Germany? The Jesus of the slave owners in colonial America? The Jesus that says that all Jews are going to Hell because they are Jewish and have not believed on Him? The Jesus that legislated segregation in this country? The jesus that men are killing others in Ireland about? The Jesus that the churches say that if you don't join my church you are from the devil? The jesus that says that he came invisibly in 1914? The jesus that says that there are special books that there denomination only has? The jesus that says that the US and Britian are the lost tribes of Isreal and thearfor they are the true jews that all of the promises go to? The jesus that says that only white people are "saved" because Noah was white? The jesus that says that all catholics are from the devil because they have a pope? The jesus that says that all protostants are from the devil because they do not have a pope?
When He said that sentance that you quoted, He meant that the people who live their lives in denial of God, that just because they belonged to a church ,or what, that their membership was not enough for entrance into the Kingdom of God. They could still deny God's existance by living a life of darkness which is the denial. The denial is the life of the person if it is in darkness, and the affirmation of Him is a life of light. A life that shines in the darkness. For He said, "You are the light of the world".
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:21:14
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Ron Hill » Ron Hill, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:17:53
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:28:01
In reply to you forgot the Jesus that panhandles for change... (nm), posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:21:14
Kid-A,
Thank you for joining this discussion. You always have a good contribution to thse posts. Could you give us any more "jesuses?"
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:29:57
In reply to Re: you forgot the Jesus that panhandles for change... » kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:28:01
xxx
Posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 11:33:12
In reply to link inside: this guy might not be Jesus but..., posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:29:57
oh, man, kid, you are so funny...
Posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 11:42:25
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Ron Hill » Ron Hill, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:17:53
both ways. One either believes Jesus is the son of God, or one doesn't. One either follows the teachings of the New Testament, or one doesn't.
Actually, the only criteria for getting into Heaven is John 3:16. That's very clear.
If a Jew, Catholic, Born Againer, Alien follows that scripture, then they're in.
Remember, the point of Christ's appearance here on earth, his subsequent death and resurrection, was to offer redemption for humans, and to re-establish God's law (so, for example, the Old Testament teachings would take second place to the New Testament).
I can get all sorts of info about this from the Bible, if you'd like. I find it fascinating still, even though I am no longer a Christian.
But what you explain Lou, is directly from the New Testament, 'Revelations' to be exact, and therefore falls under the "philosophy" of Christiandom.
Posted by christophrejmc on May 21, 2002, at 14:01:41
In reply to Re: you forgot the Jesus that panhandles for change... » kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on May 21, 2002, at 11:28:01
This Jesus is a bit old, but still a classic: http://www.jesus.com/bathe/
Posted by Analine on May 21, 2002, at 17:55:44
In reply to Re: benzodiazepines get thee behind me... » kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on May 20, 2002, at 21:13:41
take a few minuets to key in a Google search and read:
> Xanax-A Voyage Into The Twilight Zone.
I was always told to be wary of writings with no references :0
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 7:12:58
In reply to link inside: this guy might not be Jesus but..., posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:29:57
Kid _A,
I am dismayed at your post that asks others to look at a link that is from an anti-Semitic web site. I have tried to find some merit in it, but I can not do so. Now I believe in freedom of speech, but I also do not believe that someone can yell,"fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Could you tell the reason why you asked others to look at the link of the anti-Semitic politition?
Further, it is a common understanding on these boards that when a someone posts a link that they endorse what is being perported in that link unless a disclaimer is given. Now I do not believe that you endorse what Mr. Crow writes in his web site. But I need for you to make a new post with your disclaimer or else it can be deduced that you support Mr. Crow's hatred toward the Jewish people, which, of course, means you have hatred toward me.
Your cooperation in responding to my request will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 8:14:32
In reply to Re: link inside: this guy might not be Jesus but... » kid_A, posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 11:33:12
Krazy Kat,
I have read your post that you say that Kid_A is "so funny' in regards to his posting of a link to an anti-Semitic web site.
Could you explain why you think that it is "so funny"? It is not funny to me that the link portrys jews as "crucifiers of christ". That phrase has been used for 2000 years to foster hatred toward the jews.
Lou
Posted by Alii on May 22, 2002, at 8:42:48
In reply to A request from Lou to Kid_A. » kid_A, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 7:12:58
> Kid _A,
> I am dismayed at your post that asks others to look at a link that is from an anti-Semitic web site. I have tried to find some merit in it, but I can not do so. Now I believe in freedom of speech, but I also do not believe that someone can yell,"fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
> Could you tell the reason why you asked others to look at the link of the anti-Semitic politition?
> Further, it is a common understanding on these boards that when a someone posts a link that they endorse what is being perported in that link unless a disclaimer is given. Now I do not believe that you endorse what Mr. Crow writes in his web site. But I need for you to make a new post with your disclaimer or else it can be deduced that you support Mr. Crow's hatred toward the Jewish people, which, of course, means you have hatred toward me.
> Your cooperation in responding to my request will be appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Lou>>>Further, it is a common understanding on these boards that when a someone posts a link that they endorse what is being perported in that link unless a disclaimer is given.<<<<<
I didn't hold this understanding before nor do I now Lou....
--- The incredibly common Alii
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 8:45:01
In reply to i don't think you can have it... » Lou Pilder, posted by Krazy Kat on May 21, 2002, at 11:42:25
Krazy Kat,
Could you clarify how you interpret John 3:16 in regards to your stating that is "The only criteria for getting into heaven"?
Could you clarify what "believe " means to you in that passage? "believe" could have diffeent meanings and I would like to know what your meaning would be so that I can understand your posts better.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 22, 2002, at 8:49:36
In reply to link inside: this guy might not be Jesus but..., posted by kid_A on May 21, 2002, at 11:29:57
When I first saw this, I thought it was another David Icke--just a lunatic conspiracy theorist. And maybe Icke is an anti-Semite, too; I can't read that crap closely.
I am sure that KidA doesn't condone this guy's tactics and share his beliefs. He probably just thought it was funny, in a lunatic-fringe way.
But if you actually read what he's saying, it does all boil down to the same old "Blame the Jews" propaganda.
The irony of it all is that because we are a religion/group that values education, and because we were among the first peoples to make businesses (because we could; we taught ourselves how to add and subtract!), we are blamed for all the world's economic and political woes. But we were also among the first to extend credit and put things "on account" for folks who couldn't pay. In the ghettos, the Jewish merchant extended credit to the poorest of the poor, often with no expectations of being paid. Yet those who took advantage of him called him a thief, accusing him of raising his prices or selling poor merchandise.
We are forever someone's scapegoat. It will never change. And though we are not all Zionists, and we do not all condone the acts of some Israelis, we are still one big devil in the eyes of the racist.
I hope folks will give more thought about the links they include. And I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, Lou.
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 8:54:05
In reply to Lou's right. Lou's right? Yeah., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 22, 2002, at 8:49:36
Beardedlady,
The overiding purpose of my post is for support and education. I believe in freedom of speech, for out of the post in question came your wonderfull response.
Lou
Posted by wendy b. on May 22, 2002, at 9:16:56
In reply to A request from Lou to Krazy Kat » Krazy Kat, posted by Lou Pilder on May 22, 2002, at 8:14:32
Dear Lou,
KK may not answer you, because she seems to be the brunt of things when someone posts something so obviously ridiculous and so out-of-line that it's funny, that when she says so, she's the one to blame. For another instance of this, see my comments on swearing on PBA, and her cyber-laughing at them, and then someone taking offense at her laughing. In fact, Lou, I think you found my post offensive, and said so. Which is your right. But it is also KK's right to laugh whenever she gosh-darn-well pleases!
Kid_A's post WAS funny, and I get to say that, too. And you don't have to agree that Kid's meaning was absolutely tongue-in-cheek. But it was.
Everybody's dander is so UP sometimes...
Wendy
> Krazy Kat,
> I have read your post that you say that Kid_A is "so funny' in regards to his posting of a link to an anti-Semitic web site.
> Could you explain why you think that it is "so funny"? It is not funny to me that the link portrys jews as "crucifiers of christ". That phrase has been used for 2000 years to foster hatred toward the jews.
> Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.