![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by johnLA on September 6, 2013, at 1:11:20
In reply to Lou's reply-levnkleeph » johnLA, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2013, at 12:03:29
nice clip lou.
i haven't seen that in a very long time. that song sure hit home though. i used to teach film history and i would sometimes do a western unit. i did show 'high noon' one time.
great way to start that flick. thanks for linking it.
i am assuming you wanna play the sheriff? ;)
let me know. casting is still open!
take care lou.
john
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2013, at 9:19:23
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2013, at 14:18:21
> > I am wanting to discuss the following and other topics could be added later.
> > A. Your policy that you will abide by your TOS in relation to responding to notifications but that you give yourself the option to not respond to mine.
> > B. Why you think that it may be good for the community to see my posts not having to be responded to.
>
> I think we've discussed this some already. I'd be happy to discuss it more.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am unsure as to if you are or are not willing to register for the Hsiung-Pilder debate here on Wednesday at noon.
You say that you are willing to discuss the topic cited here but I do not know if that means that you are registering for the debate or just are willing to have a discussion about this specific topic. If you are accepting the opportunity for the noon debate on Wednesday coming, I would need for you to go to the registration thread here and post that you are going to be a registrant for the debate before Tuesday at 9AM Chicago time. If you post your registration before then, I could post additional topics for the debate. If not, then the debate will be cancelled.
In the debate, I intend to offer ahead of time the topics for the debate from me. Here is another set of topics that I will include that are in the following link.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042501.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2013, at 0:08:52
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder debate-debate topics » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2013, at 9:19:23
> You say that you are willing to discuss the topic cited here but I do not know if that means that you are registering for the debate or just are willing to have a discussion about this specific topic.
I'm more interested in discussion than debate.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2013, at 11:22:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2013, at 0:08:52
> > You say that you are willing to discuss the topic cited here but I do not know if that means that you are registering for the debate or just are willing to have a discussion about this specific topic.
>
> I'm more interested in discussion than debate.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm more interested in discussion than debate...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think as to what you are wanting to mean by that. For to be more interested still does not preclude one from participating in the debate, so I will look for you to either register or not by 9 AM CST on this Tuesday in the thread below this thread as to show if you are or are not going to be a registrant in the debate between us that I am offering for at noon on this Wednesday.
But be it as it may be, here is where I offered for you to discuss as to if you are wanting readers to think that {OK} means {supportive} in the issues that I have offered discussion with you. If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
The importance here is that if readers think that you consider the statement to be supportive because you say that it is {OK} to post it, then that is one thing and if you do not consider in this case {OK} to be supportive, then that is another thing as to why you are allowing an unsupportive statement to stand when you say that support takes precedence and that you do not wait to put out a fire where you see a statement that is not supportive that could start a forest fire, as one spark could do.
A debate is a discussion. A difference is that in a debate, there are formal rules and usually an impartial moderator. You can take your pick and register for the debate and we will put this in the debate, or you could respond to me here in the following link's question from me here. Or you could not respond to me here nor register for the debate. If you take the last option, then the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding. If you do that, could you go ahead and post here your answer to why you will leave my request outstanding? If you do, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
Lou
Here is the link to my concern
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/950671.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
In reply to Lou's reply-gauxehyhed » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2013, at 11:22:38
> If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
Bob
Posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2013, at 5:41:03
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
Stop the hating, folks!
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2013, at 5:54:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2013, at 5:41:03
> Stop the hating, folks!
Lamdage22,
You wrote the above.
What is in question here is the allowing of the statement that the ONLY reason that god's word states for those to miss out on forgiveness and eternal life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
That statement is posted here as acceptable.
The statement has been used historically by Jew-haters to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and hatred toward the Jews by precluding all Jews from forgiveness by God and precluding Jews from eternal life. The statement could be thought by some to mean that Jews can not be forgiven by God nor could they have eternal life, and neither could Islamic people or anyone else that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Now you posted to stop the hate. Could you post here what you see as the hate that you want stopped? If you could, then a more advanced understanding of how hatred toward the Jews is fostered in a community could be known.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2013, at 6:35:36
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
> > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
>
> I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
>
> > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
>
> My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
>
> Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
That could put Jews in a false light and arouse hatred toward all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. By you saying that it is acceptable for one to write that here also could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me here as a Jew, along with anyone else that does not accept the claim in question. It could lead readers to discount what I write here from the Jewish perspective as a Jew and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held.
Now you say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. By you saying that it is acceptable for the statement in question to be posted here, and if the statement could spark a fire of hate toward Jews and others as it has done historically, what "good" could come here from you saying that it is acceptable since now others could post what is analogous to what you say is acceptable to be posted about the Jews here and you will also allow what could come from your acceptance of the statement in question that says that the Jewish children murdered by Jew-haters that claimed to be superior to Jews and others that those Jewish children are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life while the murderers have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This could mean that those murderers could have a free pass to murder because they either accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they killed and did atrocities to the children, or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children. And the poster says that the bible says that. Does it? I have been revealed differently.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2013, at 18:42:44
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
Dr Bob I heed your advise Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2013, at 2:37:52
In reply to Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2013, at 6:35:36
> You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I did? Could you show me where? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2013, at 8:08:58
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2013, at 2:37:52
> > You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> I did? Could you show me where? Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
You asked as to where it is written.
Here is the post that contains what you say is acceptable to post here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/941769.html
And here is the post where you say it is acceptable:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2013, at 10:03:13
In reply to Lou's reply-whtewpsee » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2013, at 8:08:58
> > > You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> >
> > I did? Could you show me where? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> You asked as to where it is written.
> Here is the post that contains what you say is acceptable to post here:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/941769.html
> And here is the post where you say it is acceptable:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html
> >
> >
> Friends,
If you are interested in being a discussant in this thread, I am urgently requesting that you examine the list in an offered link that I will post here at the end of this post.
There is there a list of tactics used to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and hatred toward Jews in a community that I have taken from historical records and lists of what constitutes anti-Semitism as agreed by in various countries. Look for ones in the list that show how a leader of a community uses the tactic of altering the rules to go against the Jew.
Lou
To see this list, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ admin,844756 ] look for the 844756 in the colored strip url, not in the subject line.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2013, at 10:40:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2013, at 2:37:52
> > You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> I did? Could you show me where?Thanks, I see now:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/949308.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:28:22
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
> > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
>
> I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
>
> > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
>
> My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
>
> Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...'OK" to mean "acceptable".."supportive" to mean "helpful"..So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive...].
You say that the statement in question is acceptable, but not necessarily supportive.
Now the statement is acceptable to you, and readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for what is said about the Jews and others that have faiths that are different from the claim made in the statement about them on the basis that your TOS says that readers are to try to trust you in that what you do here will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they did.
Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life. This includes the Jewish children that were ghettoized and starved to death, the Islamic children gassed to death, the Native Americans slaughtered, those murdered in the crusades, the inquisition, the Spainish Expulsion, and all the other people that were murdered by those that accepted the claim in question. Now those murderers that accepted the claim in question, think that they have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they murdered the children or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children, maybe right before they were hanged as war-criminals, or they could have had someone else do the accepting for them while they were infants or after they died. So I have a want for further information from you so that clarification could be given as to what you mean by "good". If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly. Here is what the claim in question can be thought to be.
[...The ONLY reason that the bible states for one to miss out from having forgiveness and Eternal Life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...]
A. Why would it be good for this community as a whole for it to be acceptable to post here what could be thought by some to mean that the Jewish children murdered by those that said that they were doing God's will to kill them, are not forgiven and they can not have eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question?
B.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:55:09
In reply to Lou's reply-wygud » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:28:22
> > > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
> >
> > I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> >
> > > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
> >
> > My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
> >
> > Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...'OK" to mean "acceptable".."supportive" to mean "helpful"..So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive...].
> You say that the statement in question is acceptable, but not necessarily supportive.
> Now the statement is acceptable to you, and readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for what is said about the Jews and others that have faiths that are different from the claim made in the statement about them on the basis that your TOS says that readers are to try to trust you in that what you do here will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they did.
> Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life. This includes the Jewish children that were ghettoized and starved to death, the Islamic children gassed to death, the Native Americans slaughtered, those murdered in the crusades, the inquisition, the Spainish Expulsion, and all the other people that were murdered by those that accepted the claim in question. Now those murderers that accepted the claim in question, think that they have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they murdered the children or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children, maybe right before they were hanged as war-criminals, or they could have had someone else do the accepting for them while they were infants or after they died. So I have a want for further information from you so that clarification could be given as to what you mean by "good". If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly. Here is what the claim in question can be thought to be.
> [...The ONLY reason that the bible states for one to miss out from having forgiveness and Eternal Life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...]
> A. Why would it be good for this community as a whole for it to be acceptable to post here what could be thought by some to mean that the Jewish children murdered by those that said that they were doing God's will to kill them, are not forgiven and they can not have eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question?
> B.Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant her, I am requesting that you view the following video and read the following article. This is because it is said to be acceptable to post here something like the following:
[...The ONLY reason given in God's word to cause one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior...].
To see the video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[ youtube, StaPFSqqFDk ]
To read the article:
A. Pull Up Google
B. Type in:
[ The Christianity revealed in his speeches and proclamations ]
Usually first, and to verify, it is compiled by Jim Walker on Feb 27 1997
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 7:00:39
In reply to Lou's reply-request to readers, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:55:09
> > > > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
> > >
> > > I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> > >
> > > > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
> > >
> > > My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
> > >
> > > Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...'OK" to mean "acceptable".."supportive" to mean "helpful"..So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive...].
> > You say that the statement in question is acceptable, but not necessarily supportive.
> > Now the statement is acceptable to you, and readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole for what is said about the Jews and others that have faiths that are different from the claim made in the statement about them on the basis that your TOS says that readers are to try to trust you in that what you do here will be good for this community as a whole and that you will appreciate it if they did.
> > Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life. This includes the Jewish children that were ghettoized and starved to death, the Islamic children gassed to death, the Native Americans slaughtered, those murdered in the crusades, the inquisition, the Spainish Expulsion, and all the other people that were murdered by those that accepted the claim in question. Now those murderers that accepted the claim in question, think that they have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they murdered the children or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children, maybe right before they were hanged as war-criminals, or they could have had someone else do the accepting for them while they were infants or after they died. So I have a want for further information from you so that clarification could be given as to what you mean by "good". If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly. Here is what the claim in question can be thought to be.
> > [...The ONLY reason that the bible states for one to miss out from having forgiveness and Eternal Life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...]
> > A. Why would it be good for this community as a whole for it to be acceptable to post here what could be thought by some to mean that the Jewish children murdered by those that said that they were doing God's will to kill them, are not forgiven and they can not have eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question?
> > B.
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant her, I am requesting that you view the following video and read the following article. This is because it is said to be acceptable to post here something like the following:
> [...The ONLY reason given in God's word to cause one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior...].
> To see the video:
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [ youtube, StaPFSqqFDk ]
> To read the article:
> A. Pull Up Google
> B. Type in:
> [ The Christianity revealed in his speeches and proclamations ]
> Usually first, and to verify, it is compiled by Jim Walker on Feb 27 1997correction to link to video:
[ youtube, StaPF5qqFDk ]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 16:12:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2013, at 18:42:44
> Dr Bob I heed your advise Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote that you will heed (Mr Hsiung's ) advise. I am unsure if you know what his advise is because I can not be sure due to the grammatical structure of his statement that says something like that [..if people see that he does not respond to me, then others themselves may not respond to you...]. Then there is the problematic to me grammatical structure as he adds more to it that people can see by clicking on the top where Phillipa responds to and look at what Mr. Hsiung said that Phillipa responded to as to heed.
But there is the fact that he says that he has a reason to not respond to me, and that reason involves something in relation to that if people see that he does not respond to me, then others themselves may not respond to me but there is something else there that I do not understand.
So I would like to know if your understanding of what Mr Hsiung says involves that you not respond to me? If not, what is your understanding of what Mr Hsiung says in relation to that if you see that he does not respond to me, that others themselves may not respond to me. If I was to know how you understand what he said, then I could respond to you accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 11, 2013, at 18:25:33
In reply to Lou's request-addvohkey » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 16:12:16
My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:27:09
In reply to Re: Lou's request-addvohkey » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 11, 2013, at 18:25:33
> My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote the above.
Now I do not see at all how you arrived at what you wrote on the basis that you wrote that you would {heed} as to what Mr Hsiung posted. Let's look at what he said:
[...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
Now Mr Hsiung's response to me here was from my request to him to respond to what he meant by what he wrote. This involved as to if he meant 'OK" was supportive or not. He said that "OK' probably meant "acceptable".
I fail to see how him not responding to me in cases like that, how his non-responding to me could cause others to not respond to my other posts.
I would like very much for you to explain how you got out of what Mr Hsiung wrote to arrive at posts concerning responding to others concerning facts about mind-altering drugs. Those facts could mark the difference between them being a live person or a corpse, for it is generally agreed that 42,000 people were killed by psychiatric drugs just last year alone and this number will increase going forward due to more children being drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor and more mass-advertising here in the U.S.
I am giving readers information that they could use to make a more-informed decision as to take these drugs or not. That is conducive to the welfare of the community because people could have a better understanding when they have more information, and IMHHHHO lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided.
Now this question:
Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads were there is an outstanding request from me to MR Hsiung, by what you read from Mr Hsiung here that is cited?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:56:23
In reply to Lou's reply-ihnphlew » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 19:27:09
> > My interpretation as a poster only is to not repond to posts that you might or could write that are uncivil and Might or could cause a person to stop a medication that the person has weighed the pros and cons of with his doctor, significant other, or Mother, Father or other. Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> You wrote the above.
> Now I do not see at all how you arrived at what you wrote on the basis that you wrote that you would {heed} as to what Mr Hsiung posted. Let's look at what he said:
> [...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
> Now Mr Hsiung's response to me here was from my request to him to respond to what he meant by what he wrote. This involved as to if he meant 'OK" was supportive or not. He said that "OK' probably meant "acceptable".
> I fail to see how him not responding to me in cases like that, how his non-responding to me could cause others to not respond to my other posts.
> I would like very much for you to explain how you got out of what Mr Hsiung wrote to arrive at posts concerning responding to others concerning facts about mind-altering drugs. Those facts could mark the difference between them being a live person or a corpse, for it is generally agreed that 42,000 people were killed by psychiatric drugs just last year alone and this number will increase going forward due to more children being drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor and more mass-advertising here in the U.S.
> I am giving readers information that they could use to make a more-informed decision as to take these drugs or not. That is conducive to the welfare of the community because people could have a better understanding when they have more information, and IMHHHHO lives could be saved, addictions and life-ruining conditions could be avoided.
> Now this question:
> Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads were there is an outstanding request from me to MR Hsiung, by what you read from Mr Hsiung here that is cited?
> LouPhillipa,
Now here is another question;
Could you be influenced to not respond to me in threads other than those where there is an outstanding request from me to Mr. Hsiung?
If you look at what he wrote that you are heeding, he says that [... if posters see that he does not respond to me, then they themselves may not respond to you...]
Now the outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung are requests to him and I am not asking others to respond to me in his behalf. So which posts by me are you heeding his advise and what is his advise that you see, if any?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2013, at 6:40:57
In reply to Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2013, at 6:35:36
> > > If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
> >
> > I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> >
> > > the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
> >
> > My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
> >
> > Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote that it is acceptable to post here that the ONLY reason that God's word states for one to miss out on eternal life and forgiveness is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> That could put Jews in a false light and arouse hatred toward all Jews, not just me as a Jew here. By you saying that it is acceptable for one to write that here also could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me here as a Jew, along with anyone else that does not accept the claim in question. It could lead readers to discount what I write here from the Jewish perspective as a Jew and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held.
> Now you say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole. By you saying that it is acceptable for the statement in question to be posted here, and if the statement could spark a fire of hate toward Jews and others as it has done historically, what "good" could come here from you saying that it is acceptable since now others could post what is analogous to what you say is acceptable to be posted about the Jews here and you will also allow what could come from your acceptance of the statement in question that says that the Jewish children murdered by Jew-haters that claimed to be superior to Jews and others that those Jewish children are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life while the murderers have forgiveness and eternal life because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This could mean that those murderers could have a free pass to murder because they either accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior before they killed and did atrocities to the children, or they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after they murdered the children. And the poster says that the bible says that. Does it? I have been revealed differently.
> LouMr Hsiung,
You say in the following:
[...if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you--instead of responding to you in uncivil ways...].
I do not like this response written here by you and I want you to clarify what you are wanting readers to think as to what you are wanting to mean by what you wrote here. This is because IMHHHO what you wrote about me could stigmatize me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held an induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me. This is because what you wrote has he potential IMHO for a subset of people to think that what you wrote here is advise to heed concerning my posts in that there is the specter that it could mean that you are using a tactic to have others not respond to me. The tactic is that there is the potential IMO for a subset of people to think that you will be indifferent to my requests and leave my requests to you outstanding so that others that see you do this, could also not respond to me. This could amount to a boycott happening to me by you using this tactic of what has the potential IMO to be considered to be deliberate indifference to my requests to you.
I think that by you doing this that you could arouse anti-Semitic feelings against me and all Jews because the subject involved in the post is my request for you to define what you mean by "OK' as it involves you saying that it is acceptable now for members to post something like that the ONLY way that the bible says that people will miss out on forgiveness and eternal life is to not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. That alone could arouse hatred toward the Jews in a community where it is acceptable to post such, for the statement insult Jews and all others that do not accept the claim in question as that their children that were murdered by Jew-haters that claimed to have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, do not have forgiveness or eternal life while the murderers that accepted Jesus do have forgiveness and eternal life even if the acceptance is before or after the atrocities and murder by them of the Jewish children was perpetrated.
One member here thinks that what you posted is advise to them. I think that what you posted could have the potential to induce others to not post responses to what I post, which could amount to boycotting me and put a badge of shame on me and I want you to post here clarification of what you want your statement to mean.
Friends, if you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am asking for you to view the following video.
Lou
To see this video:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[ youtube, Xh95IjfsBjI ]
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
In reply to Lou's reply-wygud » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2013, at 6:28:22
> Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life.
You know, I think you're right. I was seeing:
> The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
as analogous to:
> People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
which I consider OK, but it might actually be more analogous to:
> My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
which I don't consider OK.
Thanks for persisting until I saw my error.
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on September 13, 2013, at 0:50:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
Interesting. Since this
>> My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
is (paraphrased slightly but repeated over and over and over and over in the Torah/Christian OTs and more...) THE primary commandment/foundational statement of Judaism and Christianity. And so, if it's not "okay" to even mention that it is what a poster's faith says, then, well....I say please shut down the Faith board for starters, 'cause there is just no point trying to walk such a tightrope...where discussion can't even start.
I mean, basically, it is just quoting from the Bible, but I suppose that's not really okay either. hmmm.
So confusing. What is the difference between that statement and this one:
>>My doctors say people should never take SSRIs or use anything before non-drug treatments for depression.
or this one
>>My specialists say deaf people should use ASL and ASL only and never learn to lip read.
And so forth?
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2013, at 9:23:26
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2013, at 23:26:14
> > Now I do not think that Jews or Islamic people or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Buddists or pantheists or Taoists or Deists or those that have faiths that are not Christiandom based that accept the claim in question could feel accepted here by you saying that the statement in question is acceptable. For the statement excludes all those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgiveness and Eternal Life.
>
> You know, I think you're right. I was seeing:
>
> > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> as analogous to:
>
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK, but it might actually be more analogous to:
>
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I don't consider OK.
>
> Thanks for persisting until I saw my error.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Thanks for posting until I saw my error...].
I am here to try to save lives, prevent addictions and life-ruining conditions and to stop the promulgation of ,in particular but not limited to, statements that have the potential to arouse hatred toward the Jews.
In this case here, there is the statement in question in the thread where it was originally posted still able to be actuated by those doing searches and they could see the statement stand as acceptable. I am asking that you take the initial effort and time to go to that thread and make a notation to indicate that the statement is not acceptable here. If you could, then I think that it could go a long way to steer this community in a direction away from hate being able to be considered acceptable here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2013, at 10:01:47
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on September 13, 2013, at 0:50:21
> Interesting. Since this
>
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> is (paraphrased slightly but repeated over and over and over and over in the Torah/Christian OTs and more...) THE primary commandment/foundational statement of Judaism and Christianity. And so, if it's not "okay" to even mention that it is what a poster's faith says, then, well....I say please shut down the Faith board for starters, 'cause there is just no point trying to walk such a tightrope...where discussion can't even start.Discussion can start, it just can't include those beliefs. Yes, it's a tightrope. Advanced posting. What's the point? Maybe one is that it could be a way for people who seem different to find out what they have in common.
> So confusing. What is the difference between that statement and this one:
>
> > My doctors say people should never take SSRIs or use anything before non-drug treatments for depression.
>
> or this one
>
> > My specialists say deaf people should use ASL and ASL only and never learn to lip read.
>
> And so forth?Good question, anybody have any ideas?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.