![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 72 to 96 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:06:04
In reply to Re: Don't call me creepy » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on July 15, 2005, at 19:25:49
Posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:14:35
In reply to free your mind, posted by so on July 15, 2005, at 20:40:47
But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
> The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."Um, didn't you write the post? And you say your last sentence, which is this, btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made under the name "RH is a Pr**at*or" in which you posted to me "You've been warned." I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?
gg
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:26:20
In reply to Re: Don't call me » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:05:34
> > > Hi,
> > > I would not like feeling that someone is calling my spirituality "creepy".
> >
> > I don't feel someone called Scientolgists creepy. I know they did.
>
> Thanks for your attempt to clarify my post. However, please re-read my sentence. I said "I would not like feeling that..." I see nothing in my post that refers to your feelings. Do you?
>
> gg
Only by comparative reference. In my reply, I further compared our different experiences, emphasizing the difference between knowledge and feeling.
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
In reply to My mind is not a prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:14:35
> But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.
>
> > The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."
>
> Um, didn't you write the post?No. I was responding to questions about a post on the restricted but open-to-readers 2000 board that said something like "there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy."
I wrote a post explaining my impression of another post. I obtained the explanation by conducting a google search for the phrase "Free Katie" because two people had asked me to explain the phrase, possibly because they thought I might have unusual insight into terms used in reference to Scientology.
>>And you say your last sentence, which is this,
Back up a minute. You already quoted the full text of the "Free your mind" post, which was...
("The last sentence apparently refers to efforts [to] interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists 'try to separate you from your family.'")
... so this citation is from another post...
>>btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
>Reading your citation of my post, which I will stipulate as accurate, I seem to be citing a well-known fact that Scientologists as a group have long battled to defend what is widely recognized as a civil right to enjoy freedom of religion without being the subject of libelous statements. My purpose in citing this history is to explain that as a group, Scientologists - as have members of other religions -- have long struggled to enjoy their civil rights in free societies.
> Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?> But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?
>I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
>The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.
> Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?Shirley McClain?
Anyway, no the statement you quote was written solely as a reference to a particular group's long struggle for civil rights. I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:10:25
In reply to Re: Secret rules? » so, posted by SLS on July 17, 2005, at 14:20:15
> I have never been wrong about anything. Once, I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken.i gotta remember to use it.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » gardenergirl, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
> > But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
>
> As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.Well, only if you have the time. BTW, busted.
>>
> >>And you say your last sentence, which is this,
>
> Back up a minute. You already quoted the full text of the "Free your mind" post, which was...
>
> ("The last sentence apparently refers to efforts [to] interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists 'try to separate you from your family.'")
>
> ... so this citation is from another post...This citation is from the post I originally replied to in this thread. I specifically asked you what your last sentence, which is below, was about. This sentence was contained in the post I directly replied to. A bit later, crushedout pointed out you hadn't answered my question. My question had nothing to do with any post on 2000.
>
> >>btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
> >
>
> Reading your citation of my post, which I will stipulate as accurate, I seem to be citing a well-known fact that Scientologists as a group have long battled to defend what is widely recognized as a civil right to enjoy freedom of religion without being the subject of libelous statements. My purpose in citing this history is to explain that as a group, Scientologists - as have members of other religions -- have long struggled to enjoy their civil rights in free societies.
>
> > Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
>
>
> But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?Interpretations can be made regardless of the categorical status of the interpreter.
>
> > But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
>
> Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?None that I've given any thought to. It was an association to your posts under an alter name.
> >I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
> >
>
> The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.Feelings like what?
>
> > Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?
>
> Shirley McClain?
>
> Anyway, no the statement you quote was written solely as a reference to a particular group's long struggle for civil rights. I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?Well thanks for not pulling a Dick Durbin here. As to your comparison, I have no need to comment.
Aaaah, if only I could quote the wise Auntie Mel right now.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » gardenergirl, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
> I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
So, I think merely posing the above question to gg was completely uncalled for and frankly, insulting.
I can't imagine what would have caused you to pull such a "speculation," - or whatever it is - out of thin air. Why did you ask her that?
Posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:22:41
In reply to Re: Is this a place you had to go? » so, posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:26:01
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
you show very good babblerestraint, btw, gg. i admire you.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b. Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks. All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more, but memory and/or evidence fails.
And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
gg
Posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:43:49
In reply to What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
> Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b.
oh yeah, i think you told me this already and i forgot. sorry.
>Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks.
hmm, i don't see your post. and why did you use asterisks? is it vulgar?
>All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted.
the asterisked name i guess? can you say why they were deleted?
> And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
i'm sure you're right, but i can't even follow these conversations when they get this complicated. :)
sometimes i gear up for battle in babbleland but rarely can i find the energy.
what on earth are you doing up so late gg? aren't you a nice girl who goes to bed at a reasonable hour (unlike myself)?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:56:02
In reply to Re: What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by crushedout on July 18, 2005, at 0:43:49
>>
> hmm, i don't see your post. and why did you use asterisks? is it vulgar?See this section "...because of an earlier post you made under the name "RH is a..." of this post
http://www.dr-obb.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529345.html
I wouldn't say it was vulgar, per se. But it's not a statement I wish to perpetuate.
>
> > can you say why they were deleted?They were deleted because they were posted while used2b was blocked. Dr. Bob deletes posts made by blocked posters using another name.
>
> > And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?
>
> i'm sure you're right, but i can't even follow these conversations when they get this complicated. :)You know, I can't remember now what I wanted to know, anyway. No biggie.
>
>
> what on earth are you doing up so late gg? aren't you a nice girl who goes to bed at a reasonable hour (unlike myself)?Well, I tend to sleep when I'm a passenger in a car. And I slept almost all the way home from a reunion. And I can be a night owl at times. Bad sleep habits. sigh
'night!
gg
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 1:13:49
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
> > > But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
> >
> > As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.
>
> Well, only if you have the time. BTW, busted.
Who's busted? and for what? The phrase "free your mind" was in reply to the phrase "Free Katie". i suppose it can be as much a plea as a command. Like "go team go" ... "take care" ... "have a nice day" ... "Let it be"> > This citation is from the post I originally replied to in this thread. I specifically asked you what your last sentence, which is below, was about. This sentence was contained in the post I directly replied to. A bit later, crushedout pointed out you hadn't answered my question. My question had nothing to do with any post on 2000.
Well, that's not the way I read it. Reviewing it now, I can see you were asking about something I wrote, not about the post in 2000. Anyway, now I have explained it. I was referring to Scientologists' sustained struggle to enjoy their civil rights. The point is, they might seem weird, but courts have concluded they are not. If it was a fact that Scientology was weird or whatever else people call it, their libel actions would be dismissed because truth is almost always a defense against libel.>>>Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
Chances are, my daily word production often outpaces that of the average person several fold, and sometimes I don't recognize my own writing until I see my name on it. My participation here is not among my most memorable writing.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?
>
> Interpretations can be made regardless of the categorical status of the interpreter.yes, and interpretations can be made regardless the accuracy of the interpretation. But even as you say you interpreted it, it could never be interpreted as a threat to someone who doesn't defame the faith of another. and it wasn't written as a threat, it was written as a reference to ... maybe even as a celebration of ... Scientologists accomplishments in defending their civil rights.
> > > But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
> >
> > Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?
>
> None that I've given any thought to. It was an association to your posts under an alter name.Having now an opportunity to think about it, are there reasons related to your personal history you might be primed to associate what you can see now with your recollection of what you think I wrote in the past?
>
> > >I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
> > >
> >
> > The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.
>
> Feelings like what?gut reactions that something feels like a subtle threat
> Well thanks for not pulling a Dick Durbin here. As to your comparison, I have no need to comment.Who's Dick Durbin? Sen. Richard Durbin who spoke of US actions in Guantanamo Bay by saying one might think a description of the events was a description of Nazi methods if they didn't know it was a US investigative team making the description? If so, he is a duly elected US Senator, and to make public statements such as his are not something one "pulls" though mispresentations of his statements might be the subject of fair criticism.
>
Anyway, whether or not you recognize the freedom to practice religion as a civil right comparable to the freedom to participate fully in society regardless one's ethnic origin, I appreciate that you wouldn't like feeling that someone is calling your religion creepy.
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 1:18:48
In reply to What I can remember » gardenergirl, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:34:24
> Well, I believe we already figured out that so was used2b.
I am greatly relieved that I was mistaken yet again. Thanks for figuring it out, GG. I would have been greatly saddened had my guess been right. Now, I am just embarrassed for thinking such a thing. I had to take the shot, though. All I can say is that I had my reasons. Hopefully, I will be forgiven.
> Used2b posted briefly when blocked as the name I posted above using asterisks. All but one of the posts under that name have been deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more, but memory and/or evidence fails.
> And you know, I didn't get a question answered again, did I?Sleep well, GG, and thank you so much for your efforts here.
- Scott
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 1:23:02
In reply to Re: Is this a place you had to go? » so, posted by 10derHeart on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:56
> > I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
>
> So, I think merely posing the above question to gg was completely uncalled for and frankly, insulting.
>
> I can't imagine what would have caused you to pull such a "speculation," - or whatever it is - out of thin air. Why did you ask her that?
>
>It wasn't speculation, it was an affirmation. It was a rhetorical question. It is a way of saying "I know you don't think that." I was saying, even if she did somehow interpret what I wrote as a threat, which it wasn't, it couldn't be a threat to GG because she already said she wouldn't like feeling as if someone was calling her spirituality "Creepy".
What came to mind when I wrote it was my recollection of something Robert Hsiung wrote to NickiT2, when he asked her something like "but you know you're not an antisemite, right?" I reflects a tendency to adopt a predominate rhetorical style of communities to which I write. Now that I think about it, some people reacted to Hsiung's question by saying they didn't appreciate his approach, either.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 18, 2005, at 11:41:10
In reply to Re: My mind is my prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 18, 2005, at 0:18:35
Whad I say? Whad I say?
never mind. no need to answer.
Posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 15:14:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » Nickengland, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 19:56:30
Hello So,
>Generally, Scientology has led the organizational opposition to the administration of psychiatric drugs in the Western world. But individuals who hold faith in Scientology teachings are free to believe or practice anything they choose. Scientology does recognize such conditions as "psychosis" but practitioners offer alternative approaches to treating those conditions. There are spiritual aspects of the approaches, but practically they rely heavily on mega-vitamins and cleansing proceedures such as saunas, which have a basis in some of the most historic systems of medicine in the world.
You mention Mega-Vitamins. This interests me. If we could cross over both subjects of the Scientology approach to the psychiatic illness. Would vitamins be used to treat for example serious mental illness such a schizophrenia or Bipolar? If so, would this be because the practitioners work along the route that there is a vitamin deficiency, and because of this the vitamins are treating the illness directly?
Or, is it just a preferred treatment option as high-dose vitamins would appear to be safer than a pharmaceutical approach? Finally is the diagnostics for recognising a "psychosis" any different than how a psychiatrist would reach his diagnosis of such a condition?
>My understanding of how I developed as a person is informed by concepts espoused by some psychiatrists or psychologists, though for the large part, pscyhiatry today spends far less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress than it does dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes.
So do presently still use the assistance of a psychiatrist and any drug treatments that are available through one?
I agree that psychiatry today does spend less time exploring social and developmental causes of personal distress. Would this part of psychiatric care be more to do with the aid of "talking treatments" perhaps they are wondering whether they have gone as far as they can go for now with the different approaches used for this.
>Dispensing chemicals with the hope of treating the result of those causes?
The causes of what? If one is to believe that the causes have even been found then they would be mistaken. I know you havent mentioned the word "cure" (as there isn't one with high-does vitamins or chemicals) but as much as we can agree there is no cure at present - at the same time we could also agree the casues have not been found either... In todays "treatment" that is all it is, "treating" the symtoms of the illness. Genes are being identified though and more treatments are becoming available so at least there is progress. I am neither "pro psychiatry" or a hater of Scientology..I wonder though, if the two know, or claim to no so much about the illness and the symtoms they treat, would we stand a better and quicker chance of finding the "cause" and "cure" if they put their "ideas" together? Just a thought.
>I'm just trying to avoid the insinuation that if someone doesn't reply to a direct question it's not civil. I'm saying I reply because that's what people sometimes do. I don't know that you should feel grateful -- maybe you could feel powerful that you can cause me to write interesting prose. With that skill, maybe you could be an acquisitions editor, or a creative-writing-group leader...
Thank you for the compliment.
>Well, I got hung up on the implications. It wouldn't be "Civil" for a parent to refuse to answer questions of a child about important subjects, such as safe behavior. Along those lines, I have questions about the merit of an administrator suspending for several days his response to a request that he treat all religions the same. But I was just following the train of thought that developed from your inquiry about why I spend so much time at this. My time is spent because of my interest in psychiatry and in administration of this board, but also as a result of my interest in you, which you implicity requested by asking me questions.
Now I am beginning to gain a further insight into why you post here. I thought at first, before we spoke and when I read your messages and also some of them through the archives that you reminded of the style of another poster here on Administration.
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:10
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 15:14:10
If you want to know more about how Scientologists approach mental health, you will find a widely available selection of published reading materials. I've made it more than clear I am not here to promote Scientology, regardless what beliefs I might hold or practices I might engage.
Otherwise, you have said nothing to reveal to me any evidence that you understand the first thing about my motives, interests or concerns.
Your accusation that I am motivated by revenge, along with a failure to recognize Hsiungs hostility toward me is evidence you are not trying to understand my perspective. He demonstrated malicious hostility to me in a 13-day delay in responding to a post I identified and he eventually admitted didn't meet his self-styled guidelines, and again in his lengthy refusal to admit the obvious -- that calling anybody "creepy" doesn't any where near conform with his guidelines.
For his efforts, I am giving him exactly what he asked for -- insight into his own malice he can't accept from anyone but a victim he will attempt to destroy. In the process of ignoring a plainly rational citation of his inconsistency, he has opened a door to read about his malice, his bigotry, and his murderous role in a World War where suicide has become the method of choice for provacatuers who want to consolidate their hold on economic and cultural power.
Posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 16:44:41
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And » Nickengland, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:10
>Your accusation that I am motivated by revenge, along with a failure to recognize Hsiungs hostility toward me is evidence you are not trying to understand my perspective. He demonstrated malicious hostility to me in a 13-day delay in responding to a post I identified and he eventually admitted didn't meet his self-styled guidelines, and again in his lengthy refusal to admit the obvious -- that calling anybody "creepy" doesn't any where near conform with his guidelines.
There is no failure that I have not recognised the hostility from Dr Bob toward you.
Just because I have not spoke about these issues, does not mean I have not witnessed them. I have my own thoughts on this, but simply havent wrote them down on here as evidence for you to read.
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 16:46:27
In reply to Re: I feel put down--And, posted by Nickengland on July 18, 2005, at 16:44:41
> There is no failure that I have not recognised the hostility from Dr Bob toward you.
>
> Just because I have not spoke about these issues, does not mean I have not witnessed them. I have my own thoughts on this, but simply havent wrote them down on here as evidence for you to read.
>Thank you for your testimony
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 13:05:51
In reply to Re: I feel put down, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 13:16:15
> I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith
>
> Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.OK. My feeling has in fact been that the focus should be on members of this group and not others elsewhere.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 13:48:29
In reply to Re: others, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 13:05:51
> > I refuse to be put in the position of defending my faith
> >
> > Robert Hsiung has so far refused to address the fact that his FAQ prohibits things that could offend "others" but that when it suits his desire, he defines "others" solely as members of this group who assert a particular interest of their own.
>
> OK. My feeling has in fact been that the focus should be on members of this group and not others elsewhere.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
In the above post by you , you write,[...members of this group, and {not others elsewhere}...].
Could you clarify , then, what is the difference, if any, with the following in the past here? In your opinion, what could be seen as to if Prsident Bush is or is not a person that is in the catagory, {not others elswhere} in relation to your addressing the post from the past practice here?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040914/msgs/392847.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 17:10:43
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post-pp » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 13:48:29
> In your opinion, what could be seen as to if Prsident Bush is or is not a person that is in the catagory, {not others elswhere} in relation to your addressing the post from the past practice here?
He may not be here, but those who support him are?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 17:33:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 17:10:43
> > In your opinion, what could be seen as to if Prsident Bush is or is not a person that is in the catagory, {not others elswhere} in relation to your addressing the post from the past practice here?
>
> He may not be here, but those who support him are?
>
> Bob
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...he is not here, but those that support him are?...].
Could not there also be supporters of Scientologists here also which could mean that there is no difference?
Are you saying that people here are uncivle if President Bush is the recipiant of those type of remarks, but people are not uncivil here if those type of remarks of the same nature are directed to Scientologists? If so, what could be your rational for such? And, if this is the case, are you saying that others here can continue to direct those type of statements toward Scientologists? If so, then could you offer a list of all the others here that who you do be considered by you could be the recipiants of such and be considered by you to be acceptable here?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 14:24:18
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's post (2)-whoyudo » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 17:33:04
> > He may not be here, but those who support him are?
>
> Could not there also be supporters of Scientologists hereI guess so, sorry about not seeing it that way before!
Bob
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.