![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 7:52:48
In reply to Re: suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:37:55
DR. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you declare what constraints that I may have here to me if I wish to be a participant in this discussion that NikkiT2 is innitiating here.
A. Could I cite previous posts here?
B. Are there any posts in the archives that I can not cite here? If so, which ones, and why csn I not use them in this discussion?
C. Can another here use a post in this discussion that could have the potential, IMO, to arrouse ill-will toward me and be acceptable here? If so, could you list any reasons for such?
D. Could I post links here showing how historically the use of accusations toward jews like those that have the potential IMO to have the potential for some to think that the accusation could be saying that [...the jews killed Christ...], or,[...the religious leaders of Israel are hypocrites..]? or, [...the jews are filthy...]or,[...the jews are viruses or rats, or cancers, that will infect the community...], or posts what IMO have the potential to have me have a [...badge of shame...] put on me?, or other posts that have the potential, IMO to arrouse anti-Semitic feelings here?
I would like to know these restraints upon me, if there are any, so that I could be an equal participant here in this discussion, for I am not sure how your rule of 3's in relation to posting links to previous posts of poster that I have posted 3 of here could play a part in restricting my participation in this discussion and would like this to be declared ahead of time.
Also, I am requesting that you consider the following link in relation to this discussion because it may be relevant here.
Lou Pilder
http://xxxxxxx
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 8:55:46
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-lvlplygfild? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 7:52:48
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 9:03:01
In reply to I hav requested t th admin th the above be deleted (nm), posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 8:55:46
Friends,
I am having some difficulty with my system. What I wanted deleted was not the post by me but something else that is now under exploration as to the correction. The link is difficult for me to post because of my system. I still would like to offer the link and if another posts here, then I will make another attempt to post the link.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 18, 2005, at 8:08:01
In reply to Re: suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:37:55
OK, an example
two posts below yours (the one I am replying to), in response to me suggesting that there may have been posts that had the possibility of sounding like they are accusing someone of anti-semitism, Lou posts this..
"D. Could I post links here showing how historically the use of accusations toward jews like those that have the potential IMO to have the potential for some to think that the accusation could be saying that [...the jews killed Christ...], or,[...the religious leaders of Israel are hypocrites..]? or, [...the jews are filthy...]or,[...the jews are viruses or rats, or cancers, that will infect the community...], or posts what IMO have the potential to have me have a [...badge of shame...] put on me?, or other posts that have the potential, IMO to arrouse anti-Semitic feelings here?"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/528932.html
To me, he is suggesting that my words, some how, could be anti-semitic. For, if I were suggesting what has been written by Lou, surely that would make me an anti-semite?
I'm not quite sure how asking whether you would act on such suggestions would lead *anyone* to believe I was suggesting that Jews killed Christ, and that suggestion leads me to feel put down and quite possibly defamed.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 8:47:12
In reply to Re: suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2005, at 1:37:55
Dr. Hsiung,
I am also requesting if it will be permissible for me in this discussion that if I will be permitted to cite links that show the historical use of statements like,[...Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple... make My Father's house a house of merchandise...] in relation to those type of statements being used to arrouse hatred toward the jews
Lou Pilder
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 18, 2005, at 9:11:08
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-willIbeprmted? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 8:47:12
Lou,
I give you *my* permission to bring up any of my posts in this thread, as this problem needs dealing with once and for all.
I am, though, *incredibly* hurt that you read hatred towards Jews in these posts of mine.
A close friend, who is a Jew and teaches Judaism, and I discussed this situation over the weekend, as I was getting increasingly upset about your accusations. She fails to see anything that resembles hatred toward Jews, or even suggests any of the things you see. What she see's is people making comments towards YOU, as Lou, as a person, not towards you as a Jew, or against any other Jew, or the foundations of Judaism.
How would you feel if someone here, who were black, were to constantly accuse you of being a racist, when there was no foudning to that claim?
How would you feel if I, as a woman, were to claim posts of yours were disciminatory against women simply because you disagreed with them?Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 9:28:35
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-lvlplygfild? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2005, at 7:52:48
> DR. Hsiung,
> I am requesting that you declare what constraints that I may have here to me if I wish to be a participant in this discussion that NikkiT2 is innitiating here.
> A. Could I cite previous posts here?
> B. Are there any posts in the archives that I can not cite here? If so, which ones, and why csn I not use them in this discussion?
> C. Can another here use a post in this discussion that could have the potential, IMO, to arrouse ill-will toward me and be acceptable here? If so, could you list any reasons for such?
> D. Could I post links here showing how historically the use of accusations toward jews like those that have the potential IMO to have the potential for some to think that the accusation could be saying that [...the jews killed Christ...], or,[...the religious leaders of Israel are hypocrites..]? or, [...the jews are filthy...]or,[...the jews are viruses or rats, or cancers, that will infect the community...], or posts what IMO have the potential to have me have a [...badge of shame...] put on me?, or other posts that have the potential, IMO to arrouse anti-Semitic feelings here?
> I would like to know these restraints upon me, if there are any, so that I could be an equal participant here in this discussion, for I am not sure how your rule of 3's in relation to posting links to previous posts of poster that I have posted 3 of here could play a part in restricting my participation in this discussion and would like this to be declared ahead of time.
> Also, I am requesting that you consider the following link in relation to this discussion because it may be relevant here.
> Lou Pilder
> http://xxxxxxx
Friends,
In this administrative discussion, I would like to be a discussant in it. But there are rules by Dr. Hsiung concerning what links, or posts can be placed on the board as to if they are more than 3 of a poster.
There is also the question as to if I can posts links that show how historical antisemitism was used by the Nazi regime and others. I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung what I can or can not post in this discussion ahead of the discussion so as to comply with his rules.
I am requesting from Dr. Hsiung for him to define more of this rule of his here so that I can know ahead of time as to how I would have to abide by his rule in oreder to be a discussant here without writing a 4th post of someone that I have posted 3 of in some way here.
There are other issues here in realtion to the rule. What about rrequests of mine where Dr. Hsiung did not write a determination that said if the post was acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum? How are those counted? That is why I requresting ahead of time for his reply. I do not want to post someone's post here that could be their "4th". This rule ,IMO, if not clarified, could have the potential to prevent me fom citing some posts in this discussion which could restrict my reply to this thread.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 10:01:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-the3rul, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 9:28:35
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
I do not belive that I have posted here that anyone is antisemitic. My posts to Dr. Hsiung requesting a determination as to if a statement is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum sometimes were about statements that IMO could have the potential to arrouse antisemitc feelings.
For instance, there was a poster using the handle,"Aryan Soldier". In your opinion, could there be the potential for that handle to arrouse antisemitic feelings? And if so, could anyone here request that Dr. Hsiung make that determination?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 11:14:29
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-the3rul, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 9:28:35
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread. It is written here something about me accusing others here of being antisemitic. I do not believe that my requesting to Dr. Hsiung for him to make a dertimnation about if a statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings is accusing anyone of being antisemitic.
For instance,In the following , a poster writes here, [...the jewish people still deny that jesus was the messaiah...].
Now I may have requested to Dr. Hsiung to make a determination as to if that statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. But I ask you this. Could not anyonre here have asked Dr. Hsiung to make that determination? And to go further, if a person writes the statement in questionhere, are they antisemitic?
Friends, I can not see into people's hearts. And I make no claime to have any power to determine one's heart here as to if they harbor hatred to jews. But I ask this: Can I not be vigilant, even if I am the "lone dissenter", to have Dr. Hsiung address posts that in my opinion could have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings?
Lou
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:18:13
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-londisntr, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 11:14:29
> For instance,In the following , a poster writes here, [...the jewish people still deny that jesus was the messaiah...].
> Now I may have requested to Dr. Hsiung to make a determination as to if that statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. But I ask you this. Could not anyonre here have asked Dr. Hsiung to make that determination?Yes, but I would suggest the adminstrator is not qualified to make such a determination on his own. He can only offer an opinion. A fully qualified determination of the answer to that question could only be provided by a group of sociologists who methodically approach the question and whose conclusions are reviewed by a panel of qualified peers. The administrator here can only make a determination as to whether he will allow such statements at his site.
>Can I not be vigilant, even if I am the "lone dissenter", to have Dr. Hsiung address posts that in my opinion could have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings?
You can, even if you were alone in your dissent but you are not.
And faithful Jews are not the only ones who do not assert that the first century heir to the Hebrew throne was a messiah. I make no such assertion either.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 12:54:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-londisntr » Lou Pilder, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:18:13
Friends,
The poster "so", has written something like,[...you are not alone...].
It is refreshing to know that.
I am requesting to find out if there are any others here that also could write that I am not alone in requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination as to if it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum for a post like the one in question here.
On another note, Dr. Hsiung usually replies to my request for a determination as to if a statement has IMO the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings with a determination as to if the statement,[...puts down those of other faiths...]. I really do not expect Dr. Hsiung, or anyone else individually , as the poster "so" writes, to be able to make a determination as to if a statement has the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings.
But if the statement is part of historical uses of the same or similar statement that has been used historically to arouse antisemitic feelings, then I feel that that could be relevant in someone's determination as to if the statement in quesion has the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings, for if it did in the past, could it not have the potential for it to do so now?
Lou
Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 13:38:50
In reply to Lou's reply to so's post-repthist?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 12:54:11
Looks like you might be alone again, at least in this campaign. SarahT and CrushedOut set a trap using the rediculous do-not-post rule and I slipped into it while exposeing SarahT' hateful verbal assault against me "SOme peoPLe" and you PL aka LP.
Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 13:47:50
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-londisntr, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 11:14:29
> It is written here something about me accusing others here of being antisemitic. I do not believe that my requesting to Dr. Hsiung for him to make a dertimnation about if a statement has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings is accusing anyone of being antisemitic.
Hm... I'm going to try to be very, very careful here, so that I can stay within the spirit as well as the letter of the civility guidelines. Not, by the way, to avoid a public rebuke from Dr Bob, but because I really am trying to find mutual understanding on this issue.
Lou, you're right -- you have never written, that I have seen at least, that anyone is anti-semitic. You've drawn comparisons between what someone has posted here with propaganda techniques used by discriminatory entities such as the Nazis in the past, in asking that the full implications of what someone has written be considered. The problem is, as we've seen here, that the distinction may seem awfully fine to some people. While your intentions may be simply to point out that similar wordings have been used against certain groups in the past, and that using those wordings now may not be sensitive to the feelings of others, a lot of people can -- and, demonstrably, do -- read more into it than that.
"Intention" is probably a key concept here, on both sides of the issue. Your intention may not be to accuse anyone of anti-semitism, and it may distress you a great deal when someone brings that interpretation of your posts up on this board. By the same token, though, I think a lot of the posters whose words you've questioned as having "potential" to create anti-semitic feelings are equally distressed to read that unintented interpertation of their words.
The net result of all this, it seems to me, is hurt feelings, flaring tempers, and often incivility towards one another. I don't think that's what anyone wants.
> For instance,In the following , a poster writes here, [...the jewish people still deny that jesus was the messaiah...].
This may be nothing more than my own ignorance coming out, but I think that that statement is pretty much in keeping with the basic tenets of Judaism, isn't it? It may be an unfortunate choice of words to use "still", because it might be read to imply that Judaism has maintained that stance in the face of adequate evidence to the contrary, but that's a very, very thin hair to split.
One of the main differences between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity is founded on the principle that the Messiah has already come in the form of a man known as Jesus. Judaism, on the other hand, does not recognize this man as having been the Messiah. Because what was written in the post you're using to illustrate your point is less opinion than a legitimate part of the belief system in question, I am not sure why you object to it? (Although, please note, I have not read the entire post in question.)
> And to go further, if a person writes the statement in questionhere, are they antisemitic?This is where I lose you, Lou. I really can't see what you're objecting to? A lot of people are ignorant of the beliefs of Judaism, and some of them are all too willing to share that ignorance with others, but the fact that Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, while Jews do not, is pretty well known.
If you take your question a little step further, it's a bit like asking whether Christianity in general should be considered uncivil here on this site, because it might have the potential to create anti-semitic feelings in some. I don't think that's what you're advocating, I'm just saying that it's possible to have misunderstandings come up around issues where everyone's intentions are innocent.
> But I ask this: Can I not be vigilant, even if I am the "lone dissenter", to have Dr. Hsiung address posts that in my opinion could have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings?
> LouOf course you have the right to be vigilant, and to ask Dr Bob to address your concerns. I think what others are reacting to is that it sometimes seems as though you may not recognize how much pain some other people here have experienced as a result of having their words brought up, out of context, for review. Can you understand that?
I guess what I would most like to advocate myself here, for everyone, is to consider both intention and context. "Intention," because I truly believe that the people at this site have no malicious intentions when they post here, with very, very few exceptions over the years I've been here. "Context," because nearly everything in this world can be pulled out of context and seen in a very distressing light. It's like cutting words out of a newspaper to write a threatening letter: you can find the words you need to write a threat, using words that, in their original context, had no threat at all attached to them.
I hope that what I've written is clear, and that no one takes offense at it. It is meant only to try to express my own view of the issues as I see them. If I have hurt anyone's feelings, or offended anyone, due to careless use of language, I apologize in advance. It was not my intent.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 14:39:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-londi » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 13:47:50
Friends,
There is discussion here about a particular post. Below is the link to the thread involved.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040408/msgs/337166.html
Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 14:58:52
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-link, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 14:39:39
After reading only a bit of the post Dr Bob was responding to there, I can understand why one would object to it. The portion of the sentence that was used to illustrate the need for rephrasing, though, is not the portion that got my hackles up a bit.
Aside from that specific issue, though, I wish that you would respond to some of the other parts of what I wrote. I wrote it in the hope that you and I could understand one another better, and that we could explore ways to resolve our misunderstandings. I hope that I was understandable in what I wrote, but if not I'm happy to answer any questions you might have that might help clarify it. And I hope that you will engage in a dialog with me about it, two way communication.
Thanks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:02
In reply to Thank you for the link » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 14:58:52
Friends,
One of the aspects of this thread is if a poster writes a statement here that could have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings, or to put down jews,could it be determined ,just from that, that the poster of such is antisemitic?
My thinking is not. Antisemitism, generally, has to do with the hatred of jews. This hatred, IMO, I can not see, for I believe that hatred is in one's heart and that it can not be known by me.
My use of ,{is there the potential for the statement to arouse antisemitic feelings} is based upon just that-the {potential}.
My concern is to DR. Hsiung as to if he will deem a post of that nature to be acceptable or not here in relation to the guidlines of the forum. There is no guidline that states to not post statements that have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings in the FAQ, but there is a guidline that states not to put down those of other faiths or to accuse others, etc.
Some of the statements that I have requested Dr. Hsoing to write a determination about could IMO, have the potential to accuse jews.
But there is the question here if a statement has the potential to put down or accuse jews, does that mean that the poster of such is , from that only, antisemitic?
You see, I never asked Dr. Hsiung to make that type of determination. I only asked him if the statement had the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings and he responds, generally, as to if the statement in question puts down jews, etc. according to his guidlines for the forum.
If someone here want to ask me if I think that that makes the person an antisemite just for that post, the answer is not.
One could innocently write a statement that has the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings. I am only reauesting from DR. Hsiung in relation to the guidlines of the forum, not the poster's intent, for I do not know how one could know someone's intent in their heart.
I ask this. Can not anyone be allowed to request this type of determination from the moderator here? And also, If I was to be not allowed here to request this type of determination, could others here do so, or could there be a potential then to have that type of post silenced about this as a stilled night?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 17:02:08
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-fivstans, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:02
Friends,
It is written here about my requests to Dr. Hsiung for him to make a determination as to if the statement in question {has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings}.
Could we look at the following? In the following, the poster writes something like,[...Jesus is the one to pray to...anyone else...is in error...].
Now I may have rrequested to Dr. Hsiung to examine that to see if he could make a determiattion concerning if the statement could ahve the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings.
My concern to Dr. Hsiung was if the statement was allowed to be considered acceptable, then could there be the potential for some others to think that the statement is saying that the jews that do not pray to Jesus, and others that do not pray to Jesus, are praying to God in vain because the poster writes what he/she wrote? And could that {put down jews and others} which could then have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings to jews that do not pray to Jesus and those type of feelings toward others that do not pray to Jesus. Without a determination, could there not be the potential that the forum endorses that people that do not pray to Jesus are in error?
I ask, could not anyone ask for the determination? And I also ask, do you ,in your opinion, think that the poster of the post in question is antisemitic because of his/her post? I do not think so. I only would like for Dr. Hsiung to state that the post is not acceptable {in relation to the guidlines of the forum}, not if the poster is an antisemite.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/290895.html
Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 17:05:30
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-fivstans, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 16:03:02
Dear Lou,
Your most recent post in this thread has answered some of my concerns regarding what you have posted in the past regarding anti-semitic reactions here on this board. While I continue to disagree with a portion of what you've said -- that is, I do believe that there is an implicit suggestion that, if one writes something here which could inflame anti-semitic sensibilities, one is displaying anti-semitism -- I appreciate your taking the time to explain your views at more length.
At the same time, Lou, my feelings are a little hurt that you chose to address your response so impersonally. I had hoped, despite the format of the boards here, that you might have answered me directly, engaged in a dialog about this that others could read and possibly join in. I'm sorry you didn't, although I accept the fact that those are just my feelings, for which I alone am responsible.
Peace.
Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 17:35:07
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-ineror?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 17:02:08
>
> Could we look at the following? In the following, the poster writes something like,[...Jesus is the one to pray to...anyone else...is in error...].
> Now I may have rrequested to Dr. Hsiung to examine that to see if he could make a determiattion concerning if the statement could ahve the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings.
> ... not if the poster is an antisemite.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/290895.htmlThis gives me an idea, that might be a pleasant compromise for everyone: howzabout I run it up the flagpole and see if anyone likes it?
Maybe, instead of asking if posting a sentiment such as this has the potential to create anti-semitic feelings, Dr Bob were asked whether a statement like this is advocating any specific religion, to the exclusion of all others, or at the expense of all others, or something like that?
I guess that feels more comfortable for me because so many comments like the one referenced are not aimed at any given religion, but at all religions except, of course, the "One True Faith" the poster in question adheres to. Does that make sense?
To me, I guess it's a kind of "prejudiced, but not discriminatory" thing. Make any sense?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 19:44:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-iner » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 17:35:07
Friends,
It is written here something like,[...comments are not aimed at any spacific religion...].
I see these type of posts somewhat like the poster here has written about in the sense that some of these type of posts do have a general statement about all religions except theirs.
But in considering as to if the statement has the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings, I gennerally use the following to mke my own assessment before I request intercession by Dr. Hsiung.
A. Does the post have the potential to show {hostility} to jews?
B. Does the statement have the potential to show hostility to Jewdaism?
C. Does the statement have the potential that if Dr. Hsiung lets it stand, that discrimination toward jews here will have the potential to be established?
D. Does the statement have the potential to accuse jews?
E. Does the statement have the potential to demonize jews?
F. Does the statment have a historuical use that others used to arouse antisemitic feelings?
But what if jews are not mentioned? I ask you, if the statement has the potential to arouse ill-will toward one group, let's say , christians, does it not also deserve the same request for a determination? I have aske dthe same for christians and others here, not just jewdaism.
I am requesting that you read what is in the following link if you are going to post to this thread. The poster writes,[...If you can't believe in the Word of God, there is no hope....do not put your trust {in anyone but Jesus Christ} who died for you...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030908/msgs/261465.html
Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 21:25:59
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-critera, posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 19:44:39
I've read your list of the criteria you use to decide whether or not to question something written here. I understand that this is very important to you, Lou, and I hope you understand that the issue is important to me, too, which is why I've tried to enter into a dialog with you about it.
It seems to me that the ultimate goal here is that all religions will be extended equal respect, yes? If all religions are accorded EQUAL respect, then is it really fair to single out Judaism for additional protections? It seems to me that what you're advocating wouldn't result in equal respect for all religions, but rather the reverse?
Also, while I respect your right to your belief system -- much as it differs from mine -- I am still greatly bothered by your criteria F. There are so many things that have been said about so many faiths which can be perfectly innocent under different circumstances. I really believe that one must take context into account, and that failing to do so can be perceived as accusatory.
Peace, Lou -- and others. I feel that, at this point, I have devoted as much time to this as I can, and choose to put my time to more productive use now. I will not offer my usual closing, "Be well", because it seems that it is not necessarily civil.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 23:02:35
In reply to The last thing I want to say about any of this » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 21:25:59
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to reply to this thread.
It is written here,[...is it...fair to single out jewdaism for additional protections?...].
I am requesting that anyone here give a URL that writes that jewdaism is, or is wanted to, or anything else that could be saying that jewdaism about [...singled out for additional protections...].
I am also requesting that you search the archives for posts by me requesting that Dr. Hsiung address what IMO are statements that have the potential to arouse antichristian feelings.
I remember having dialog with Dr. Hsiung concerning his posting of Jean Jacques Rousessau's statement that christians [...were slaves...etc...]. Dr Hsiung agreed with me and did modify the opening page of the faith forum.
I recently requested that Dr. Hsiung address another poster's statement that IMO defamed Scientologists. That post by me generated many agreements to my request, in that others thought that Scientologists were not given equal consideration here reletive to the guidlines of the forum.
I remember speaking up for the jahovah Witnesses and the Islamic people.
I ask this. If jewdaism is being singled out, or is advocated to be singled out, or anything else that could be related to [...singled out for {additional} protection here...], could you explain what here is saying that?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 18, 2005, at 23:15:57
In reply to The last thing I want to say about any of this » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 21:25:59
Friends,
I am asking you to take into consideration the following if you are going to reply to this thread.
It is written here,[...criteria F...context to be taken into account...failing... can be percieved as accusatory...].
This could be in relation to my seeing the historical propaganda that has been used to arouse antisemitic feelings in a post here since critera F is that if I see historical antisemitic propaganda in another's post her, I request for Dr. Hsiung to make a determination as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not and in some cases , if the statement has the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings.
I believe that I have taken into account the context when I have made these requests to Dr. Hsiung.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 14:03:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-iner » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 17:35:07
> To me, he is suggesting that my words, some how, could be anti-semitic.
>
> NikkiT2I guess the way I see it, he's suggesting that posts may not be civil. It helps me administrate if people inform me about posts they consider for whatever reason questionable. But that's inevitably somewhat accusatory. It's a conflict between the tasks of administration and support.
The 3-complaint rule is intended to be a compromise. To allow these "suggestions" -- but only to a limited extent.
--
> Maybe, instead of asking if posting a sentiment such as this has the potential to create anti-semitic feelings, Dr Bob were asked whether a statement like this is advocating any specific religion, to the exclusion of all others, or at the expense of all others, or something like that?
>
> RacerThanks for helping to brainstorm this! But isn't it a problem if one religion is put down even if no other religion is advocated?
Bob
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 19:06:08
In reply to Re: suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 14:03:36
> > >
> > Maybe, instead of asking if posting a sentiment such as this has the potential to create anti-semitic feelings, Dr Bob were asked whether a statement like this is advocating any specific religion, to the exclusion of all others, or at the expense of all others, or something like that?
> >
> > Racer
>
> Thanks for helping to brainstorm this! But isn't it a problem if one religion is put down even if no other religion is advocated?
>
> BobMan, I hate it when that happens...
This is a sensitive issue for me -- well, religion in general is pretty sensitive for me, but that's another story. The question of anti-semitism came up today in a telephone call, about an incident that seemed quite similar to the larger issue here -- with so many people feeling accused of anti-semitism by Lou's references to Nazi propaganda -- and how that affects discussion. Whether or not it's considered "right" or "fair" or any number of other honorable things, any hint of an accusation of anti-semitism seems to end any hope of discussion. As soon as someone feels as though it's been suggested that they might harbor anti-semitic feelings, they defend themselves on that front, rather than examining their arguments for logic, or for actual anti-semitism, for that matter.
While I understand your stance on this -- or at least I think I understand it -- and I certainly believe that Lou is entitled to question any post he sees as questionable, I'm still very, very concerned about the number of times others here have felt accused of anti-semitism by the form those questions take. Does that make sense? Regardless of intent, the end result has been a number of people feeling as though they've been attacked for anti-semitism, and feeling hurt by it. I'm not sure that that's healthy for the community as a whole.
OK. Lemme step down off my little soapbox -- and do you have any idea how hard it is to find a proper soapbox in these days of liquid laundry detergent? -- and end by saying, "I'm gonna shut up now..."
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.