![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 159. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on July 21, 2002, at 8:24:27
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 8:27:48
In reply to Have a nice trip, BL... (nm) » beardedlady, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 10:12:16
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Shar,
I am referring to Kiddo's posts in total. Dr. Bob only flagged the one part about the "wrong" road, "right" road . But to me, all of Kiddo's post are of one thought and I believe that the total thought of those posts "cross the line into anti_Semitic rhetoric." I have read and reread Kiddo's post and I deduce from them that:
1) Only people that are "in accordance to the word", and Kiddo's jesus was defined as the word, were on the right road, and all others were on the "wrong" road . So it is unmistakable that Kiddo's posts imply, to me, that jews are on the wrong road because jews do not accept the new testament or the jesus that Kiddo is referring to as the word. Now me and Dr. Bob agree that that is not acceptable on this board because of the reasons stated by him. Dr, Bob did not block Kiddo, but only flagged the post to say at that point that Kiddo should reevaluate her direction with the thought, in total ,that she was presenting, IMO.
2) Also, I deduce from Kiddo's post that the jews in history were against the jesus that Kiddo is talking about because of the defamation of the religiuos jewish leaders as "hypocrites" and that they did not accept that the jesus that Kiddo is talking about did his works, by the power of God , but by Beelzabub, which Kiddo has aknowleged to be the satanic. Actually, the bible passage that Kiddo is citing is much more than what is presented here. I offered a historical background as to the history of Beelzabub , but no one asked me to post it.
3) Also, I posted the edict by Queen Isabel of Spain that expelled the jews from Spain in 1492. I posted that as educaton to show that historically, similar thought as Kiddo postd was used to persecute the jewish people and that is one of the reasons that I thought that Kiddo's posts were rhetoric that was crossing into anti-Semitic thought. Now I do not believe that anyone here is anti-Semitic. When people post these type of posts, I view them as innocent posts for I believe that when they post them, they know not what they do. It is my position to stop the posts from getting out of control, so I object to them, for I believe that if these type of posts were not flagged by Dr. Bob, that they would have the opportunity to arrouse real anti-
Semitic feelings toward me with posters demanding my expulsion, with posters posting links to anti_Semitic web sites, with posters using epithets and profane language toward me, with posters citing bible passage that defame jewish people, maufacturing falsehoods about me, conspiering with others to ostracise me, post responses to me to not answer their posts, accuse me of not answering them, posting that I should not be allowed to get away with it, etc. etc. until I would be forced to leave.
4) another aspect of this, although it is not going into the rhelm of anti-Semitism, is the position that Kiddo takes in regards to people not knowing God. It appears to me that what was attempted to be put forth was that people can only know God through reading the new testament. I may be wrong about what Kiddo was trying to say in that post of hers about the people that did not know God, and I am asking Kiddo, if she reads this post of mine, to clarify what she meant by that post so that I would be better able to understand it and, perhaps, discuss it further with her.
Thamks,
Lou
Posted by mair on July 21, 2002, at 10:39:16
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Shar
The point I was tryng to make is that the post that Dr. Bob flagged was written by Kiddo on July 18. Lou posted 3 or 4 more times after that on the 18th, and all of these posts were directed to kiddo. He did not raise the anti-semitism issue until the next day, after Dr. Bob's admonishment. I think it's an after-the-fact rationalization to say that he was already thinking of raising this issue before Bob ever flagged it. However, this may be appropos of nothing other than perhaps Dr. Bob fuels Lou with his cautions to other posters.
My other point however is that I find very little difference between calling someone an anti-semite and accusing them of using anti-semitic rhetoric. Anti-semitism is such a loaded issue - I don't care whether he thought his post was being instructive or whatever - if you use that word in reference to something someone has said, they can't help but be offended.
In spite of the fact that I took almost as many religion courses in college as I needed to have it be my major, I have little patience with or interest in discussing the finer points of the Bible, and should probably stay out of these discussions. I just really thought that Lou followed kiddo over here to the admin Board, not the other way around, and chose to respond to her post to Dr. Bob with a post that one could easily take as accusatory. Posters here are constantly being told by Bob not to read things Lou writes that may upset them or to not respond to him unless they can find a way (frequently strained) to say it in a way that no human being could possibly find to be accusatory or unsupportive. My personal opinion is that Lou says and does alot of things on the Board that can really be construed as being quite inflammatory, the post in question being but one example. Do you think that the last upteen posts on this thread would ever have occurred had Lou not responded to Kiddo's post to Dr. Bob?
Mair
Posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 10:58:01
In reply to Lou's resonse to Shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 10:12:16
I am only posting here in very rare cases, in case hrtlm wants to make a comment again about my just going, and have kept out of this thread because I can guess where it is going to end up. No one is going to win.
But as it seems to get deeper and deeper into a criticism of Kiddo and her beliefs, I decided I'd like to post my support. I won't get into the discussion beyond this post for the same reasons I left, but I do want her to know I'm thinking of her in this respect. Someone mentioned casualities from debate in general here - that's actually a good term for those who have decided to seek support elsewhere, and if I were Kiddo, this would really tempt me to do just that.
I don't understand why some Jews from Christ's time can't be critized - they were Jews. So was Christ. So was his Mother. So were the apostles - all wonderful Jews. I'm part German. I am well aware that there have been good Germans and bad Germans in the world. In fact I have to deal with the fact that there were some damn bad ones... and it is hard at times to come from a people who could be so gullible and tyranical.
I wish that Lou would explain one thing - why everything he is describing (and I mean Everything I have read) is in Revelations? He is quoting Christ. Just as I would be quoting Gandhi if I said "Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realisation." If I said I experienced this, and then found out that Gandhi had actually said this, I would wonder if perhaps I had read it somewhere and it had popped up at a later date.
And re: beliefs and choosing the right road -- someone said that it was the way Kiddo phrased it. Yes, O.K. In keeping with analyzing everything that is posted here so that No One will be offended, I agree. But the very essense of "faith" is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" and "something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs".
Therefore, if you believe that the way to heaven, or eternal bliss, or whatever, is through Christ, there can be no other way. Otherwise you don't truly believe your conviction.
- KK
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 11:52:19
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by mair on July 21, 2002, at 10:39:16
mair,
There is a difference, to me, of calling someone an anti-Semite and saying that what they have posted crosses, in my opinion, into anti-Semitic thought.
Once again, I am not calling Kiddo an anti-Semite. I am saying, like Dr. Bob was cautioning Kiddo, that the total thought that Kiddo was presenting could be construed as anti-Semitic rhetoric. I am only cautioning Kiddo that I believe that her thouht should be reconsidered, just as Dr. Bob has said, for it is encroaching into the area of historical anti-Semitic propaganda. I am simply trying to ward off the rest of what , historically, has been said in the thought that Kiddo is presenting. If I do not object at this point, then I beleive that the other historical things that have followed that type of thought,(the jews are not saved because they do not beleive in jesus....etc. etc..) could be posted, perhaps innocently, by another poster. I believe that Dr. Bob was doing Kiddo a favor by saying that she should stop and reevealuate the "right and wrong" road thought that she was presenting. I have had this happen to me on another board and some other places and the moderators would not stop it and it went on to include posts and statements to me in email like the following :
You are to "be gone" from this board for you are jewish and jews do not believe in our jesus so you are of the devil because anyone that does not have the spirit of our jesus is of the anti-christ.
Only membes of Catholisism are saved
Only members of Jahovah's witnesses are saved
The jews killed christ so jews should be persecuted
This is a Christian country, you get out
jews are dirty and cause epidemics
jews reject their own massiah
jewish doctors give AIDS to some
The jews control the media
All jews are going to hell because they do not accept christ
jews can not reach God in prayer because they can only reach God in prayer if the prayer is in the name of jesus.
Albert Einstien and the jews that developed vacines for polio are in hell because they did not accept christ.
Now , once again, I am not calling anyone an anti-Semite. I am simply objecting to thought th at is written here that could be construed by others to be anti-Semitic and if I do not object and want it stopped, then I would be allowing it to go further and I am taking the position here that I will try to stop people from going over that line of thought that could lead to the above examples. I posted Queen Isabel's edict to show , historically, what could happen . I believe that if the Spainish people would have objected to the Queen's edict, that perhaps, the edict would have been withdrawn. But, the people were threatened with death if they harbored a jewish person so that would make it difficult to do so.
Now if the question is whether or not I am accusing Kiddo of being an anti-Semite, then please put it to rest for I am not doing so. I realise that a lot of the Christiandom churches teach what Kiddo writes. And I believe that you all know by now that I believe, from my experiance, that others that are not members of christiandom or any other religion can receive The Crown of Life and have never heard the name of jesus and enter The City of Peace and be with God forever.
Lou
Posted by fachad on July 21, 2002, at 13:52:15
In reply to support for Kiddo..., posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 10:58:01
> I wish that Lou would explain one thing - why everything he is describing (and I mean Everything I have read) is in Revelations? He is quoting Christ...if I said I experienced this, and then found out that Gandhi had actually said this, I would wonder if perhaps I had read it somewhere and it had popped up at a later date.
The technical term for this phenomenon is cryptomnesia. From a dictionary definition:
"Cryptomnesia is, literally, hidden memory. The term is used to explain the origin of experiences that people believe to be original but which are actually based on memories of events they've forgotten."
"Cryptomnesia may also explain how the apparent plagiarism of such people as Helen Keller or George Harrison of the Beatles might actually be cases of hidden memory. Harrison didn't intend to plagiarize the Chiffon's "He's So Fine" in "My Sweet Lord." Nor did Keller intend to plagiarize Margaret Canby's "The Frost Fairies" when she wrote "The Frost King." Both may simply be cases of not having a conscious memory of their experiences of the works in question."
It can be very frustrating to a person who has had (subjectively) genuine mystical experiences to have a skeptical person point out exact similarities to some historical document. But it also could be viewed as validating their experiences because they are in agreement with a recognized mystical tradition. Or it could be viewed as a valid experience with elements shaped by cryptomnesia. Either way it does not necessarily have mean they are being insincere.
Posted by ctrlaltndel on July 21, 2002, at 17:04:06
In reply to The Technical Term is Cryptomnesia » krazy kat , posted by fachad on July 21, 2002, at 13:52:15
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.