![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:02:02
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 8:34:51
NikkiT2,
Could you point out the posts that you are referring to that you say that I have not responded to? It is my own policy to answer all posts directed to me and if I missed one, I would like to answer it now.
If you could give me the URL, then i will read it now.Thanks,
Lou
Posted by tina on October 22, 2002, at 9:08:00
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:02:02
It's not that you haven't responded Lou. You have but you aren't LISTENING to what is posted to YOU. You talk and you talk but you don't listen at all. We ALL said that the word "fools" is not acceptable under the civility guidelines but you just go on and on about the Rider, ignoring that your question has been answered over and over. All this isn't necessary. Just HEAR that the word FOOLS is the offending part of your post and move on....
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:41:26
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 22, 2002, at 9:08:00
Tina,
Thank you for your interest in this discsssion. Are you saying that the word, "fools" can never be used on this forum and that the prohibition is (absolute)?
Could you clarify if you mean that one could not quote a line by Shakespear if the word "fool" is in the line?
If you could clarify that , then I will be better able to understand what you mean and be better able to discuss this topic with you.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 10:17:59
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Dinah's post-part 2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 21, 2002, at 10:46:34
Dinah,
I have read your post and have some questions that I would like you to respond to so that I will have a better understanding of what you have written. If you could answer them , then I could better understand the rules of this electronic bullitin board and then be better able to construct my posts to accomodate the board's rules.
1)Are you saying that if I tell of my faith experiance, in relation to that my God told me that I should have no other Gods before Him, that that statement could cause others to respond and then there would be an atmosphere on the board like some other board that you mentioned that would be (undesierable)? I base this on your paragraph in your post that I am responding to that describes one christian sect attacking some other sect about their baptism(s)and Jesus.
2) Are you saying that just because some people react to things that way that it will (absolutly) happen here?
3)Could it be possible that the posters here are of a different mentality that what you have described to have happend on some other board and thearfore what you describe as to what happened on another board may not happen here?
4)Are you saying that the "rule" (absolutly) prohibits me from posting that my God told me that I should have no other Gods before Him? And if so, could you clarify why that statement would violate the rule, if I posted it on the faith board, and a statement like "faith without works is dead" could not violate the rule?
If you can clarify that to me, and give me your descriminating rational that describes why my post would be restrained and the post that says, "faith without works is dead" would not be restrained, then I could be better able to construct my posts to accomodtate the descriminating rational.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 10:45:26
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:02:02
The posts are all in this thread Lou. one from Tina and one from me for example.
nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 10:46:48
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Dinah's post-part 2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 21, 2002, at 10:46:34
Dinah,
You wrote that Dr. Bob has made the rules to "keep a certian atmosphere." Could you clarify what you mean by that statement in relation to the following questions,or any thing else you would like to include in your response? If you could do that, then I will have a better understanding of the rules of this board and their rationals, and I will be better able to compose my posts to accomodate those rules and rationals.
1)Could you clarify if it is my post, only, that I want to post about that I was told by the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, that I should have no other Gods before Him, is the sole post that you think would change the "atmosphere" or if a post like, "I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, would not change the atmospher of this board? That was posted on the faith board by another poster and I did not see any change in atmosphere to the board, but if I missed a change, could you point the posts out to me that seemed to be a change in the atmospher due to the posting of that post?
2) Could you tell me what the "certian atmospher" is that would be changed and why the new atmospher, that could result from the change, could not ,possibly, be a better atmospher for the board, or are you saying that change , in and of itself bad?
If you could clarify that, and distinguish whether your post here is your own thoughts or the thoughts that you are putting forth as a reprsentative of the administration of Psycho-Babble, as your status as a board deputy, then I will have a better idea of how the rules operate in regards to one that seeks change to existing policys.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2002, at 11:22:26
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-part 2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 10:46:48
Ahh, Lou. Of course I am responding as myself. I am not part of the administration of this board, and my duties as deputy are few and well defined by Dr. Bob. I have rarely used them in fact.
My post was made on the basis of the oft cited rules of civility prepared by Dr. Bob, and my second post was merely a statement of agreement in principle with those rules, and one example of a site where those rules were not in place.
I am not going to make judgements about the posters on that site as opposed to the posters on this site. I don't think it was a question of posters as much as it was of site guidelines.
I'm sorry I cannot help you more, Lou. Specific questions have to be addressed to Dr. Bob. I was just offering you empathy concerning your dilemma, which has been shared by many others attempting to communicate their faith on the faith board.
All I can offer is a guess, and I did write out some of what I guessed would be ok, and what wouldn't. But I erased it because I would have just been guessing and that wouldn't have been fair to you.
I wish you the best of luck in telling your story.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 12:20:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-part 2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2002, at 11:22:26
Dinah,
Thank you for responding to some of my concerns. Dr. Bob says in his opening page that he has mixed feelings about having board deputys, like youself, and I agree that I also have mixed feelings about it , for I do not want your status as a board deputy to be a wedge between us as being both discusants on this forum.
Also, you mentioned that you made up a list if your ideas and then discarded them.
I was wondering if you would do me a favor and reconstruct your list and email them to me for I beleive that you have good ideas and that there may be something in your list that would be benifitial in regards to what we have been discussing.
If you could do that, I would be appreciative of your concern.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:22:51
In reply to Lou does respect the views of others » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2002, at 6:32:47
Friends,
The question of a person telling of their faith here has come up and I would like to share with you what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this subject.
The case began when some people were told that they were being disrespectfull to others if they followed one of their tenents of their religious beliefs. The group fought the people that were punishing them for following one of their beliefs all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and the court ruled on whether someone could be accused of disrespecting others if they followed one of their beliefs. I will tell yu, next about that Supreme Court Rulling
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:35:38
In reply to Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:22:51
Friends,
The case involved one group's speech in relation to the other group accusing them of being disrespecful to them for following one of their groups tenants of their religion involving speech and whether their speech disrespected the other group by their speech.
The case began around 1942 and has since established the rulling on whether one person's speech disrespects another person if the person's speech involved their faith. I beleive that this case is relevant on this board because that subject is now being discussed and I believe that it is an issue here that needs to be openly discussed so that the posters here will have this infomation to include in any posts that they may make relavant to this discussion.
Next: The case
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:48:29
In reply to Re: Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:35:38
Friends,
The case began when a group of students were being expelled by a school district for following one of their religious beliefs. Also , a teacher was firerd for following his same belief.
The group was an unpopular religious group in that community, but I still admire to this day their great courage for challenging the expullsions of their children because they followed one of their religious tenants.
The school district's argument for expelling the students was that what they said, which was a tenant that they followed in their religion, was disrespecting to others. There were three issues decieded by the Supreme Court of the United States that today are a beacon of light.
Next, the issues.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 15:23:31
In reply to Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:48:29
Friends,
The case began when a student of the unpopular religion in that community refused to stand and recite what is called the pledge of alligiance to the flag.(hearafter just called the pledge).
The school disticts argument was that by not standing and reciting the pledge, the student was disrespectfull to the others.
Not so!, said the court. The court rulled,(1) "To compell a person to say that they Must speak, is just as violative to their civil rights as telling a person that they can not speak.
(2) To say that because they do not stand or speak and that they thearfore are disrespecting to those that pledge was poo-pooed by the court. Also, the court said that the school could not requirer the students that followed their religious tenant to not salut flags, which is their right to free speech,to go outside the room when the pldge was recited. They had a right to not speak and any action as a result of their excercising thir right to free speech is a violation of their civil rights guarnteed by the Constitution of the United States.
(3) No one has the right to establish what is orthodox in religion (or polotics).
The teacher won, and he just said that his concience prohibited him from saluting flags and that his refusal does not mean that he is disrespectfull to anyone any more than the pledgers were being disrespectfull to him.
God Bless America,
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 16:04:42
In reply to Re: Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 15:23:31
Lou.
You are still missing the point that i have bene trying to show you.
You were not warned by anyone, including Dr Bob, for sharing you religious beliefs.
You called those of us who do not believe in god fools. You offended ME with this statement. You offended others with this statement.
Dr Bob pointed out that this was disrespectful.Please consider this.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 22, 2002, at 9:08:00
> you aren't LISTENING to what is posted to YOU. You talk and you talk but you don't listen at all. We ALL said that the word "fools" is not acceptable under the civility guidelines but you just go on and on about the Rider, ignoring that your question has been answered over and over.
Please remember not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, OK? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
> > you aren't LISTENING to what is posted to YOU. You talk and you talk but you don't listen at all. We ALL said that the word "fools" is not acceptable under the civility guidelines but you just go on and on about the Rider, ignoring that your question has been answered over and over.
>
> Please remember not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, OK? Thanks,
>
> Bob
What's not civil here ?1) Lou does not listen to others, he just asks questions
2) He does go on and on
3) "Fools" enough said
4) His questions are answered and he sill asks
the question againSometimes a rose is a rose, and there is no other way to discribe it
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 18:11:42
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
> What's not civil here ?
>
> Sometimes a rose is a rose, and there is no other way to discribe itIf your description is a negative one, then it's more supportive of the rose just to refrain from describing it. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 18:47:15
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 18:11:42
Ah ! I thought the PBC went to Nikki, now I see it was tina. They were saying the same thing, but I can detect (slightly) how one was less civil than the other.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
In reply to Lou, Lou, Lou.., posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 16:04:42
NikkiT2,
You asked me to please consider your post. I consider all posts here valuable and I am considering it as you have requested.
There is disagreement here , now. And reasonable men and women can disagree. Disagreeing is a natural aspect of communication.
You wrote that "Dr. Bob pointed out..."
I do not consider anyone infallible,including myself. I like what ISO M said, when she said that all of us have come short of hitting the target all of the time. We are all far from being infallible.
So NikkiT2, let us let some time run between us and , perhaps, either I or you may see things in a different light. Untill then,
Peace be upon you,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 20:03:48
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
Oracle,
Good evening. I read your post and I was looking forward to having a discussion with you because you have posted some other posts that were intriguing to me.
In regards to the discusson at hand, do you have anything that you could post to enlighten our perspectives about this disagreement? If you could post anything , I would appreciate it for I consider your input valuable, and all others also.
Lou
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » tina, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:41:26
I have explained very succinctly the general objection to the word "fools" as it was used in YOUR post and will not elaborate further simply because it isn't necessary.
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:39:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
I don't need time as I am not angry. I am just trying to poin tout that no one attcked you for your views on god or your experience, just for calling poeple fools.
Please try to understand this.
Nikki
Posted by mair on October 23, 2002, at 7:51:48
In reply to Re: I won't be baited » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
I think (my opinion only), that you were being baited and I applaud your restrained response.
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
NikkiT2,
There is disagreement , now, not about what the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experince, said to the man that said that there is no God, but about whether or not I will be restrained to say that the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, said to me, "you shall have no other Gods before me."
I disagree with the moderator's position to restrain me from posting that , for I beleive that others are allowed here to post that they believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost without restraint upon them and that I will be restrained if I post that my religion requirers Me to believe in only one God. There are other religions besides judaism that also believe in only one God. I do not asking for special rights, but (equal) rights and I am objecting to the fact that I have been told that I will be restrained from posting that I have been told that I must believe in only one God.
I am not telling people here that believe in many Gods that the can not do that. I am not telling people here that they can not beleive that God in what christiandom calls a "trinity". I am not telling people here that they can not beleve in no God at all. Dr. Bob quoted the bible in one of his posts. I am not restraing him from posting what the word of God said to him or others that quote their bible here.
Someone here recently quoted the bible," For with the heart one exercises faith for rightiousness..." No one is trying to restrain that poster from posting that. She has a God-given right, an American-right and a human right to express what she believes about her God without beng accused of disrespecting others , and I am saying that so do I.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
OK, one final time.
You were not told to stop saying the stuff about only one god. You were not told to stop posting your experience.
You *were* asked not to post stuff that others might feel offended by, such as calling those that don't believe in god fools.
You called *me* a fool. You called others fools.
That is all this is about. Nothing more.
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.