![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 159. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 13:50:45
In reply to Re: I believe Dr. Bob is away » Dinah, posted by kiddo on July 20, 2002, at 13:37:08
>
> I'm replying to your post...
>
> If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize in advance, but that's how I took it...
>
>
>
> KiddoNo I meant it that way. So no need to apologize. That is if you think I mean that Dr. Bob is away and hasn't yet responded to this thread. There have been a few sentiments expressed on this thread that would seem to be best expressed after Dr. Bob has had a chance to respond. And since Dr. Bob usually doesn't respond on weekends, no matter what holy heck is breaking loose here, I always assume he's out of town, or enjoying a well earned rest with his family.
However, I might be being a bit paranoid. Various posts lately have sounded like people have been sitting around at some location or other working themselves up into a frenzy of self righteous Bob-bashing. And using the same words over and over, as if they'd just attended a meeting of Recovery, Inc. and memorized the handbook. And if anyone mentions patriarchal male domination, I swear I'll scream. Now I fully admit to that possibly being incorrect. I do have problems with extrapolation sometimes. And if so I apologize.
I don't really see this as a game. I see it as a rotten shame. With the biggest casualties coming from those of us who detest conflict.
Perhaps you are angry with me over this. That is your right. Just as it is my right to always remember you with fondness.
Dinah Rose
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 13:57:23
In reply to Re: please be supportive » Dr. Bob, posted by kiddo on July 19, 2002, at 17:42:46
Friends,
Click on the web site below of the decree to expell the jews from Spain by Queen Isabel in 1492
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/ALHAMBRA_DECREE.htmI would like to share this with you as history and, perhaps, we can discuss it.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by IsoM on July 20, 2002, at 14:04:24
In reply to Lou's response to Mair's post » mair, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 13:06:20
If someone were to say “My Jewish neighbour burned their store down to collect fire insurance” would that be construed as anti-Semitic? Or if someone said “My Christian neighbour committed adultery with his co-worker” would that be anti-Christian? How about when news reports state that Islamic fundamentalists bomb a market place? Or when Muslim & Orthodox Catholics murder each other in another hot spot? Was it anti-Sikh when it was said that Indira Gandhi’s assassins were her Sikh bodyguards?
Get real! It’s reporting all the facts, rather the bare bones, of what happened. When the news state that a murderer was a 45 year old male postal employee, it’s not discriminating against men, postal employees, or 45 year olds & no on in their right mind thinks that.
“What book depicts Jews as hypocrites, apostates, liars, and sinners? What book denounces Jewish leaders and the Jewish nation? What book scolds its priests, claims its Temple services are corrupt, and spews forth warnings that God's judgments will fall upon the Jews? What book - accusing the Jews of murder, corruption, greed, and robbery - declares that they have forsaken God?
“Yet the book described in the opening paragraph is not the New Testament - it is the Old! Indeed, if the criteria for determining anti-Judaism in the New Testament were applied to the Old, it would be declared the more anti-Jewish of the two.”
(quoted from Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? by Clifford Goldstein, Liberty, March/April 1992 - http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/newtest.html )In fact, some of the strongest rhetoric comes from the book of Ezekiel (Yehezkel or Yichezq'el of the Hebrew Tanach). In Ezekiel 3:7, it says “But the house of Israel will not consent to hearken unto thee; for they consent not to hearken unto Me; for all the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart.” A Jewish prophet writing in the Jewish Tanach for the Jewish people… hmm. Was he anti-Semitic?
Posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 14:30:10
In reply to Re: I believe Dr. Bob is away » kiddo, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 13:50:45
> I don't really see this as a game. I see it as a rotten shame. With the biggest casualties coming from those of us who detest conflict.
How much could you detest it, Dinah, when you seem to put yourself right in the middle of it every time? Someone says something about Lou, and you post how bad you feel about it. Someone says something about Dr. Bob, and you post how bad you feel about it. Peace is not made by racing back and forth to support every side of an argument. Peace is made through compromise and hard work.
> Various posts lately have sounded like people have been sitting around at some location or other working themselves up into a frenzy of self righteous Bob-bashing. And using the same words over and over, as if they'd just attended a meeting of Recovery, Inc. and memorized the handbook.
I think this is a horrible thing to say. I really do.
I have marched on Washington in protest over nuclear weapons, and I have been part of candlelight vigils for peace--as long ago as 1982 and as recently as last spring. I have heard the "America: Love it or Leave it" slogan so many times from people who don't understand how much we treasure our American identities. But just because you live in the best place in the world doesn't mean you shouldn't always strive to make it better. Everything, everyone, can improve.
And just because Psycho Babble happens to be the best board with some super people here, it doesn't mean that some of those people can't or shouldn't work to make it better.
Yes, sometimes that means conflict. Rather than making peace with everyone, you contribute to that conflict. And that's okay! It's perfectly okay to be involved in a debate! But it's not okay to claim yourself a casualty of that debate, while disregarding the feelings of those who would like to improve this site.
Iso, Zo, Wendy, KK, and I are not sitting around by the campfire with our laptops, toasting marshmallows and waiting to pounce on Dr. Bob or Lou or you or anyone else. But we do lurk, as is our right. And we do pop in now and again when we have something to say or to support those who seem to be treated unfairly here.
The conflicts are happening in our absence, not because of us.
beardy
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 14:42:21
In reply to PB: Love it or Leave it? » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 14:30:10
Nope. I'm not going to apologize this time. I can hate conflict and be horrendously hurt by it and still think that it is important to do what I think is right. You aren't going to make me feel guilty this time. I have worked my patootie off to make this a pleasant place. And I have always tried to be more than civil to everyone. And I have grovelled when I thought I might have offended. But no more.
Did I mention anyone by name? I don't think so, nor was I thinking of the names you mentioned particularly. What was that you said to me once about my being so self absorbed that I thought everything posted was about me? I believe the example was given on PPB if you would like me to provide a link.
Dr. Bob has a right to give me a please be civil. No one else does. If he thinks I'm being uncivil, I'll take it like a man.
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 14:49:40
In reply to PB: Love it or Leave it? » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 14:30:10
And we do pop in now and again when we have something to say or to support those who seem to be treated unfairly here.
> .
>
> beardyBy the way, why is it right to do that when you do it and wrong to do it when I do it.
Posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 14:57:13
In reply to Re: PB: Love it or Leave it? » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 14:49:40
Dinah:
I wasn't assuming you meant anyone in particular. I put those names in myself, not because I thought you were talking about me, but because it didn't matter to whom you were referring. I thought you had made a rude statement in general, not in specific.
And it's not right when I do it and wrong when others do. I believe my whole post said it was right when people protest to make a place better. What's wrong is to complain that you're a casualty of the very conflict you help to create.
And no one is asking for an apology. Good for you. It's about time.
beardy
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 15:09:18
In reply to Re: PB: Love it or Leave it? » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 14:57:13
It just appears that certain phrases keep cropping up with greater frequency than one would expect. Perhaps it is a coincidence. I would certainly hope that people are too busy providing support to one another to engage in an orgy of bob-bashing. And I'm glad to hear that's true. Bob-bashing can't be all that amusing.
But I'm not apologizing for supporting whomever I wish to support. Is that good enough for not apologizing?
Posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:11:20
In reply to Re: PB: Love it or Leave it? » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 14:42:21
> I have worked my patootie off to make this a pleasant place.
Did others help? Are you implying that this was not a pleasant place at one time, and then you made it so, and now it looks like it might become unpleasant again? Or was it ever pleasant? And what does pleasant mean when you use it? Pleasurable? Or simply agreeable?
beardy
Posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:12:35
In reply to Re: Well, I did say I'm sorry if I'm wrong. :) » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 15:09:18
I accept your non-apology, Dinah, but don't get upset by my follow-up question.
beardy : )>
Posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 15:16:14
In reply to Your patootie » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:11:20
Are you accusing me of being self absorbed once again. :)
Of course I wasn't implying that it was only me, or that I am center of the universe. But it was unpleasant for a time, and I and the majority of others have worked hard to make it pleasant here again.
I guess I remember the glorious days of old. Perhaps with rose colored spectacles. I can't remember if you were here then or not. Last fall maybe?
And you aren't going to make me mad, beardy. No you're not. :D
Posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:24:29
In reply to Re: You silly. :))) » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2002, at 15:16:14
I'm not trying to make you mad. I just want you to realize that you can't make peace without walking into the conflict and that, rather than becoming a casualty, you are becoming a veteran.
As for not apologizing, it's usually a good thing to do infrequently. That is, when you've really done something you're sorry you did, that's what an apology is for.
Maybe I'm just a really good therapist and haven't figured out that it's my calling yet. Okay, go home; you're cured. And could you pay me in pesos? I'm going to a more pleasant place than this.
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 16:31:03
In reply to Anti_semitic or Stating Facts, posted by IsoM on July 20, 2002, at 14:04:24
IsoM,
You asked if a report that someone said that their jewish neighbor burnt down his store to collect insurance would be anti-Semitic .
My answer is undoubtably," yes." One reason is that the identification of the neighbor being jewish has nothing to do with the fact of arson. This is called linkage. The crime is linked to being jewish and it should never have been in the statement, for being jewish doesn't lead to criminal activity although your example links it to it. The reason people use linkage is mostly because of hate, and they want to defame the one that they are using linkage to and arrouse hate to them by others. In the middle ages, the black plague was linked to the jews by using the same hatefull means.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 16:54:42
In reply to Anti_semitic or Stating Facts, posted by IsoM on July 20, 2002, at 14:04:24
IsoM,
Are you saying that since there are admonishions to the House of Israel in the tenauch that others can be ligitamate in saying that jews are hypocrites,apostates, liars, etc. etc. now?
Lou
Posted by coral on July 20, 2002, at 18:02:37
In reply to Lou's answer to IsoM's post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 16:31:03
Uhhh . . . there's something about "description" that's important. As I understand what I've just read, if I say a "man" attacked me, it's an anti-male statement.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 22:09:40
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to IsoM's post, posted by coral on July 20, 2002, at 18:02:37
coral,
Description would be relavant in an attack to aprehend the attacker. But the fact that a person is jewish and arson is commited, is not relavnt to the arson.
Now here in Cincinati, there is opposition to the police "racially profileing" This has now been stopped here as the court has ruled the profileing to be decriminatory.
So , I agree that identification is necesary in some situatins and that the describing is not descriminatory in describing an assult. But to say that people that are black should be pulled over and questioned by the police because they fit a profile, is descrimimatory here in Cincy. Other citys are also looking in to this.
Lou
Posted by jane d on July 20, 2002, at 22:13:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Kiddo's post » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 19, 2002, at 21:52:07
>> My post causes you concern, yet you say my belief constitues anti-Semitic rhetoric??? I am posting on a FAITH board, am I not? So in essence, what you are saying is you can post your experience on the Faith board, but I’m not allowed to quote the Bible on the Faith board, am I correct? Jesus Himself was Jewish, can you please explain to me where you get the idea I’m being anti-Semitic? I’d also like to know what portion of my post constitutes anti-semitic rhetoric?? Perhaps I feel the same way you do about your posts, but I’m not allowed to say anything about it or I’ll receive a PBC, PBS, or be blocked for my opinions, or quoting the Bible….
Kiddo,Welcome home.
For what it's worth I don't think you got cautioned for quoting the bible or stating your beliefs but for the way you said what you did. It seems like there shouldn't be a difference between saying "you are on the wrong road" and "my church teaches that that is the wrong road" but in practice there is. One is a more personal criticism. I think that when you say "You are wrong" people have this compulsion to reply "No I'm not. You are." And it goes back and forth, with each round getting angrier, until no one can talk to each other about anything.
I think we all believe our own version of the truth is correct. I'm as rigid as anyone else in that respect. We've set up a society that says it is better to at least give lip service to other peoples rights to their own beliefs than to constantly be at war over it. And we've got a board here which takes a similar stand. I think that's a good thing. It lets people avoid getting so angry at each other over one issue that they can't speak to each other about anything at all.
Again. Welcome home. What a miserable thing to end up in the middle of after a long trip.
Affectionately,
Jane
PS. I'll be answering Lou too.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 22:31:20
In reply to I believe versus you are wrong to believe » kiddo, posted by jane d on July 20, 2002, at 22:13:25
Jane,
Thank you for your input to this discussion. You brought ou wise point . But even your suggestion that ...my church teaches that our road is the right road... etc. etc. ,to me, would also violate the spirit that Dr. Bob was addressing. It is the posting that another person's road is "wrong" that makes the post incongruent to the purpose of he board and hense, Dr.Bob stated such and I agree.
I welcome any post directed to me and I would be glad to discuss these issues with you.
Lou
Posted by jane d on July 21, 2002, at 1:08:12
In reply to Re: I'll say it anyway. » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2002, at 9:21:30
> Dinah,
> I ,and Dr. Bob, showed our objection to the type of post in question. Now objecting to what someone has written is, to me, not being "accusitive". I am objecting to what was written, and I am not accusing anyone of being ant-Semitic. I am objecting to the written phrase, for they ,to me, cross the line to be anti-Semitic rhetoric. Now someone could say that what was written was not anti-Semitic rhetoric. But that only means that people disagree. And disagreeing is not being "accusitive". If no one could object without being labled as "accusitive", then we could never object.
> Now if you want to say that when a person objects, that they are "accusitve", then , I believe, that that should be a separate thread on the administration board, not the faith board.
> Your suggestion that I express how it makes me feel and take an educative approach is not, I believe, requiered by me on an internet board. I do not believe that I have an obligation to educate or tell how something makes me feel, but if I do, then I will do so. If you want to tell those how it could make one feel, and to educate them , then that could be a good thing for you to do on our own. And I would appreciate anyone's writing about that on this board.
> Thanks,
> Lou
Lou,I'm really glad that you are not accusing Kiddo of anti-semitism since it is such a serious charge. Perhaps, however, if you re-read your earlier posts - as I have just done several times - you'll see how she and others could have thought that you were. Particularly in this one. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6382.html. Using the phrase "standard anti-semitism" about a specific post and then going on to mention neo-nazis does make it sound as though you were accusing her.
I don't know that you are required to educate here but I think that educating is a necessary part of any discussion where people have such different perspectives. Someone said in another post that the internet is better for debate than discussion. I don't think that has to be true. In a debate it doesn't really matter whether the other person understands your meaning but in a discussion it does.
Jane
Posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:45:30
In reply to Your patootie » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:11:20
> > I have worked my patootie off to make this a pleasant place.
>
> Did others help? Are you implying that this was not a pleasant place at one time, and then you made it so, and now it looks like it might become unpleasant again? Or was it ever pleasant? And what does pleasant mean when you use it? Pleasurable? Or simply agreeable?
>
> beardyOr, Dinah, were you simply describing the effort you made, personally, to make this a pleasant place? With no hidden agenda.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 5:51:39
In reply to Re: Your patootie....Dinah, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:45:30
Posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
In reply to Oh. Right. (nm) » shar, posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 5:51:39
Posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
In reply to He shouldn't get away with this, posted by mair on July 20, 2002, at 12:44:21
> I support kiddo. She's right, Lou never said a word about her post being accusatory until Bob cautioned her. More importantly, there was nothing inherently accusatory in kiddo's post...
Mair, I agree with what you've written. However, I've gotten confused because
(1) The PBC by Dr. Bob to Kiddo said "but I don't think it's supportive here to imply that there's only one "right" road..."
Then,
(2) Lou responded "My concern is that your posts, to me, go over the line and constitute anti-Semitic rhetoric. I base that on the same post that Dr. Bob flagged *and* your other post about your accusation that the pharisees were hypocrites...etc." [emphasis mine]
(3) Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Bob only said (in essence) 'don't say that your way is the one right way.' He never said anything at all about other posts, or what they implied, or how they might be understood or misunderstood, or that there was something inherently anti-Semitic in any post.
So,
(4) I believe Lou has attributed to Dr. Bob some agreement with Lou's stance (for example, Lou's statement "to be some kind of implied condemnation to the pharisees, to me, for , and Dr. Bob agrees") when I don't find that anywhere. Dr. Bob's statement was quite clear and clearly limited to the no-one-right-way idea, I thought.I have reread the posts, and imo the original PBC got turned into something it is not, and that most of the discussion does not center around the point of the PBC.
I also think this is either a lose-lose situation, or people will just have to agree to disagree about an interpretation of the bible parts, and, I hope, come to a gracious end.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 7:59:46
In reply to Have a nice trip, BL... (nm) » beardedlady, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
Posted by Dinah on July 21, 2002, at 8:01:17
In reply to Re: Your patootie....Dinah, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:45:30
Thank you for expressing it better than I did.
And thank you for understanding.
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.