![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 271 to 295 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2013, at 20:04:58
In reply to Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2013, at 10:52:01
> > > Lou so this makes you special like an Angel do the Jews believe in Angels as I don't know. So if I'm not a Jew and I ignore the message. I am not responsible? Phillipa
> >
> > Good piece of logic, Phillipa.
> >
> > If one does not listen to the pleas of Lou Pilder, a Jew, is that any different from Lou Pilder ignoring the pleas of a Christian to accept Jesus as the savior? Perhaps Lou should seek tolerance of the pleas and beliefs of others as others have been asked to tolerate those of Lou. I think that both pleas come from the heart, even if they are rejected reciprocally.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> It is written above. It is difficult for me to have the understanding of what the poster is wanting others to understand from what he wrote for there is much more here about this.
> The plea "to accept Jesus as the Savior" is in a post that has been ruled to be not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community if the statement includes that it is the {only} way to have Eternal Life and forgiveness from God.
> But this could be problematic because Mr Hsiung has not notated the following as to if it is or is not in the same category. The statement says something like,[...Christianity is the {only} religion that has a way back to God...].
> That statement puts down Jews and Islamic people and any other person that has a religion that does have a way back to God that is not a Christian religion. The statement insults Islamic people and Jewish people and Hindu people and all other people that have a religion that could have a way back to God other than the Christian way. The statement can be seen as civil and supportive here due to the nature of Mr. Hsiung's written terms of service here and his written policy that have not been changed yet, although there could be a change to the TOS here. I do not accept Mr. Hsiung allowing the statement to remain naked of any sanction until he changes the written TOS that can be seen now, to say something that would allow the statement to be civil and supportive. And even if he changes his written TOS here to allow it to stand, the statement could still put down Jews and Islamic people and the others that I have written here as included, and Islamic people and others could still consider the statement an insult to Islam and feel offended for if Mr Hsiung does make that written change to his TOS, he then could be seen as fostering insults to Islam and Judaism and the others by allowing the statement to be determined by him to be civil and supportive. This IMHO would be a worse thing for this community as it would allow hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and the others to be considered by a subset of readers to be supportive and good for this community as a whole because Mr. Hsiung says to trust him in that he does what will be good for this community as a whole.
> Here is the statement that a subset of readers could think is supportive and civil here due to the fact that it stands unsanctioned and Mr. Hsiung says that even a small insult could start a forest fire and that he does not wait to put it out, a fire of hate as I see it. And the fire could grow and grow and grow outside of this forum and just because it could start here does not mean that it could not spread beyond here as readers could carry the flame of hate to other communities as seeing it as supportive by a psychiatrist. Not just an ordinary psychiatrist, but one that writes books about on-line mental health.
> But it is much more than that. You see, the Christiandom member here can post that Christianity is the only religion that has a way back to God, but I am prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that includes a way back to God from a Jewish perspective.
> Let us look at a post in question that I am objecting to here as being that it is allowed to stand as then supportive and civil.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> And then this about Jews is posted and could be seen as civil here and supportive.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.htmlFriends,
The aspect of the message that Phillipa writes about that has Scott replying to, brings up as to what my message is. I have not posted the message due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsuing.
Now Scott writes,[...If one does not listen to the pleas of Lou Pilder, a Jew, is that any different from Lou PIlder ignoring the pleas of a Christian to accept Jesus as the Savior? ....]
Whatever the plea of mine is, it is not specified here.
And going on with what Scott wrote,[... Lou {should} seek tolerance of the pleas and beliefs of others as others have been asked to tolerate those of Lou..].
The issue here going on now is that there are statements that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that do not accept the claims of Christiandom. One stated above and here is another one.
Here the statement says that one of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if the religion has an agenda not centered in Christ. The statement puts down Jews and Islamic people and all other religions that are organized and have an agenda not centered in Christ. The rule is in Mr. Hsiung's terms of service that is well-known. Yet today, the statement stands as being seen by a subset of readers as supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. The statement is an insult to Judaism and Islam and the rest that I have included. And Mr Hsiung states that he does what will be good for this community and to try to trust him at that.
But the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me is not allowed by Mr. Hsiung for me to post here. That is then also good for this community as a whole? Whose being tolerant of whom?
Lou
to see this post:
look at the second list as #5
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Posted by Phillipa on November 15, 2013, at 20:37:08
In reply to Lou's response to Scott's post, more-wursd, posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2013, at 20:04:58
What about Mormons, Jehovah's Whitness's and other religions. What about Spiritualism? Phillipa
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 15, 2013, at 20:41:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Scott's post, more-wursd » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 15, 2013, at 20:37:08
> What about Mormons, Jehovah's Whitness's and other religions. What about Spiritualism? Phillipa
Phillipa,
In what respect in regards to those organized religions?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 15, 2013, at 22:20:47
In reply to Lou's replyThe Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ovkoar~, posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2013, at 16:54:30
> > Let us look at this post:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
>
> Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.htmlSorry, could you repeat the question?
Bob
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 16, 2013, at 5:24:11
In reply to Lou's replyThe Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ovkoar~, posted by Lou Pilder on November 15, 2013, at 16:54:30
> > > > I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > >
> > > Have I posted that I agreed with you? If so, you could notate it yourself with a link to my post.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > > I think we disagree about the likelihood of (1) that statement being seen as supportive and good for this community and (2) that leading to you being traumatized.
> > > >
> > > > Now if there is a subset of readers that could think that, then the "match" could light the fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and that subset of readers that post such could think that they are doing what you appreciate them to do ... The aspect of how likely that could happen is not in your terms of service, for it reads not to post {anything} that could put down those of other faiths. And anyway, I have not given my thoughts here on how likely or not statements that put down Jews could cause another to target a Jew for murder. So I can not think of why you have any reason to say that you disagree with me in relation to how likely that could happen, for I never stated my opinion about that quantity.
> > >
> > > That's a good point, maybe I should rephrase that:
> > >
> > > I think we disagree about whether there's a need for me to address those posts. I imagine you see a need because you think it's likely that (1) those posts will be seen as supportive and good for this community and (2) that will lead to you being traumatized. I don't see a need because I don't think that's likely.
> > >
> > > I used to try to address all incivility, to try to make this a refuge. Did you prefer that? I don't think you'd be alone.
> > >
> > > > > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> > >
> > > At the same time, the police tend not to ticket people for minor violations.
> > >
> > > I appreciate your tolerance and resilience. I see you as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Let us look at this post:
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.htmlMr. Hsiung et al,
The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting, and in particular a mental health community owned and oporated by a psychiatrist that has rules against it.
Let us look at your rules and how they are enforced.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Mr Hsiung states here that he does not see a need to enforce his own rule that says that antisemitic statements put down Jews and are not civil. Mr Hsiung states that others are not likely to see antisemitic statements (allowed to stand) as being supportive and good for the community.
Here are the antisemitic statements that are in discussuon and as of now they can be seen IMHO by a subset of readers as being supportive and good for the community because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does what will be good for this communnity as a whole.
In this one, Jews and Islamic people and others are put in the catagory of having a religion that is in the top ten worst reasons for them to be an organized religion because they have an agenda not centered in Christ. Look at the second list as #5.
Now that statement in #5 puts down Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other organized religions that have an agenda not centered in Christ. And worse than that, there could be a subset of people greatly offended by the allowing of this to stand here. This could IMHO harm their mental health to feel humiliated that this site allows that to be seen as supportive and good for this community because it is alowed to stand. The effects of humiliation to people in a group are well-documented by psychologists and you can do a search of your own to see how hate could be promulgated in a community by the leader and his constintuancy contolling the content as to that they determine what is a minor violation of rules or not. In this statement in question, those that are in an organized religion that has their agenda not centered in Christ, have the worst reason for them to be an organized religion which means to a subset of readers that Christiandom people are an organized religion that does not have one of the worst reasons for them to be an organized religion. This fits the generally accepted meaning of what is meant by {put down}. This is not a minor issue to me, for hatred toward groups that the leader allows to be defamed can be promoted by the allowing of Jews and others to be put down and seen as groups that have one of the worst reasons for their existance. Millios of Jewish children have had atrocities commited to them and then murdered by people who thought that they were better than Jews. This statement in question can IMHO stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and others, for Mr Hsiung has not taken back that his thinking is that one match could start a forest fire. Look at the secoond list as #5.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Then in the following, the statement says something like that Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God. That puts down Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that is not christiandom based that does have a pathhway back to God The statement could offer a subset of people to post what is analogous to that put down of the Jews and others as being "minor" violation of the rules and not worthy of a "ticket", for I do see a need to address the post so that a subset of readers could not get the idea that antisemitism is suoportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
Lou
Here look at line #6
http://www.dr-bob.org/babblefaith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 16, 2013, at 5:29:55
In reply to Lou's replyThe Hsiung-Pilder discussion-haytminr, posted by Lou PIlder on November 16, 2013, at 5:24:11
> > > > > I think that you already agree with me here concerning this post. So it then becomes as to if you will notate the post as to that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community or not.
> > > >
> > > > Have I posted that I agreed with you? If so, you could notate it yourself with a link to my post.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > > > I think we disagree about the likelihood of (1) that statement being seen as supportive and good for this community and (2) that leading to you being traumatized.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if there is a subset of readers that could think that, then the "match" could light the fire of hate and stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and Islamic people and that subset of readers that post such could think that they are doing what you appreciate them to do ... The aspect of how likely that could happen is not in your terms of service, for it reads not to post {anything} that could put down those of other faiths. And anyway, I have not given my thoughts here on how likely or not statements that put down Jews could cause another to target a Jew for murder. So I can not think of why you have any reason to say that you disagree with me in relation to how likely that could happen, for I never stated my opinion about that quantity.
> > > >
> > > > That's a good point, maybe I should rephrase that:
> > > >
> > > > I think we disagree about whether there's a need for me to address those posts. I imagine you see a need because you think it's likely that (1) those posts will be seen as supportive and good for this community and (2) that will lead to you being traumatized. I don't see a need because I don't think that's likely.
> > > >
> > > > I used to try to address all incivility, to try to make this a refuge. Did you prefer that? I don't think you'd be alone.
> > > >
> > > > > > I expect everyone to be civil all the time. Respecting the speed limit most of the time doesn't mean we get to speed the rest of the time.
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, the police tend not to ticket people for minor violations.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your tolerance and resilience. I see you as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Let us look at this post:
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung et al,
> The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting, and in particular a mental health community owned and oporated by a psychiatrist that has rules against it.
> Let us look at your rules and how they are enforced.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> Mr Hsiung states here that he does not see a need to enforce his own rule that says that antisemitic statements put down Jews and are not civil. Mr Hsiung states that others are not likely to see antisemitic statements (allowed to stand) as being supportive and good for the community.
> Here are the antisemitic statements that are in discussuon and as of now they can be seen IMHO by a subset of readers as being supportive and good for the community because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does what will be good for this communnity as a whole.
> In this one, Jews and Islamic people and others are put in the catagory of having a religion that is in the top ten worst reasons for them to be an organized religion because they have an agenda not centered in Christ. Look at the second list as #5.
> Now that statement in #5 puts down Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other organized religions that have an agenda not centered in Christ. And worse than that, there could be a subset of people greatly offended by the allowing of this to stand here. This could IMHO harm their mental health to feel humiliated that this site allows that to be seen as supportive and good for this community because it is alowed to stand. The effects of humiliation to people in a group are well-documented by psychologists and you can do a search of your own to see how hate could be promulgated in a community by the leader and his constintuancy contolling the content as to that they determine what is a minor violation of rules or not. In this statement in question, those that are in an organized religion that has their agenda not centered in Christ, have the worst reason for them to be an organized religion which means to a subset of readers that Christiandom people are an organized religion that does not have one of the worst reasons for them to be an organized religion. This fits the generally accepted meaning of what is meant by {put down}. This is not a minor issue to me, for hatred toward groups that the leader allows to be defamed can be promoted by the allowing of Jews and others to be put down and seen as groups that have one of the worst reasons for their existance. Millios of Jewish children have had atrocities commited to them and then murdered by people who thought that they were better than Jews. This statement in question can IMHO stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and others, for Mr Hsiung has not taken back that his thinking is that one match could start a forest fire. Look at the secoond list as #5.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> Then in the following, the statement says something like that Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God. That puts down Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that is not christiandom based that does have a pathhway back to God The statement could offer a subset of people to post what is analogous to that put down of the Jews and others as being "minor" violation of the rules and not worthy of a "ticket", for I do see a need to address the post so that a subset of readers could not get the idea that antisemitism is suoportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> Lou
> Here look at line #6
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babblefaith/20080404/msgs/832720.htmlcorrection:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2013, at 9:27:51
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 15, 2013, at 22:20:47
> > > Let us look at this post:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> >
> > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
>
> Sorry, could you repeat the question?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
an,
2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2013, at 5:59:52
In reply to Lou Pilder » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on November 11, 2013, at 18:36:56
> As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> Decency is a good and useful quality -- perhaps you could try it sometime. Have a wonderful day, Lou.10,
You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
A. I re write the question?
B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
E. something else
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
In reply to Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs? » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2013, at 5:59:52
> > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
> 10,
> You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
> I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
> A. I re write the question?
> B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
> C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
> D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
> E. something else
> Lou10derheart has no mandate to respond to any of Lou Pilder's questions. Simple.
I would like to see Lou Pilder learn to be more sensitive to feelings others. I thought the observation made by 10derheart regarding his posts to her are accurate. Mr Pilder's subject lines are not terribly cryptic, and can be extrememly uncivil, especially when his posts allude to the behavior or character of others. In my estimation, such posts mutilate civility and provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
I wonder if Mr. Pilder ever observes that he ask the same questions over and over again. To me, the majority of them seem rhetorical and act as statements to further an agenda.
Lou Pilder, I will here ask my question of you a second time:
> > I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate
Do you hate 10derheart? YES or NO
I love her. She is quite extraordinary.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2013, at 12:30:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> > > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> > 10,
> > You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
> > I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
> > A. I re write the question?
> > B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
> > C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
> > D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
> > E. something else
> > Lou
>
> 10derheart has no mandate to respond to any of Lou Pilder's questions. Simple.
>
> I would like to see Lou Pilder learn to be more sensitive to feelings others. I thought the observation made by 10derheart regarding his posts to her are accurate. Mr Pilder's subject lines are not terribly cryptic, and can be extrememly uncivil, especially when his posts allude to the behavior or character of others. In my estimation, such posts mutilate civility and provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I wonder if Mr. Pilder ever observes that he ask the same questions over and over again. To me, the majority of them seem rhetorical and act as statements to further an agenda.
>
> Lou Pilder, I will here ask my question of you a second time:
>
> > > I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate
>
> Do you hate 10derheart? YES or NO
>
> I love her. She is quite extraordinary.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote that the former deputy here in question has no mandate to respond to any of my questions.
I tend to lean to that there is an implied duty for Mr. Hsiung and his deputy now and his former deputies to respond to any questions from others here that have to do with what could be good for this community as a whole because that is part of the TOS here. Others could disagree with me, but is not the health of others here what takes precedence? And if so, could not answers to the questions to them facilitate better health to some readers?
The issues at hand here are the posts that Mr. Hsiung agrees with me are anti-Semitic posts because they put down Jews. In some cases, they put down Islamic people and others also. This is all part of the TOS here in relation to Mr. Hsiung's section on what is or is not civil and how he enforces that. Mr. Hsiung has posted that he is in the realm of the thinking that one match could cause a forest fire so he does not wait to sanction that so that the fire will not spread. That is an analogy that even small statements of unsupportiveness, like a match, could cause a huge fire of hate like a match igniting other combustibles and the small insult (if it is small, but could be large in other people's minds) posted toward Jews and others here being allowed to stand could stoke the furnace of hate which psychologists have written extensively about as to how hate in a community allowed to burn in the minds of the members could effect their health and the hate could be acted out both toward others and themselves! Mr Hsiung has posted here that he does not disagree with me in a lot about that, so the aspect of allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand could be seen by some as an unsound mental-health practice.
I am trying to offset those in authority here that will not or have not sanctioned statements that could put down Jews and others. Two in discussion now put down Jews and others such as
A.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...], and,
B. [...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...].
Both of those IMHHHO could cause great emotional/psychological harm to some readers because they put down Judaism, Islam and other religions that are not Christian religions. I think that it could go a long way in preventing deaths, suicides to those that are not Christian from being bullied or discriminated upon if they were addressed according to the TOS here, for I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that IMHHHHHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions and show how one could have a pathway back to God from a Jewish perspective that is prohibited for me to post here by Mr. Hsiung.
Mr Hsiung agrees with me that genocide, slavery, infanticide and discrimination are abuses of power when a leader of a community commits such or fosters such. I think that it could go a long way to make this community better as a whole if my questions to Mr. Hsiung and the former deputy are answered here. My question, is what could be a rational reason for anyone to want otherwise?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:36:00
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-alhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2013, at 9:27:51
> The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting
That's true, there's the theoretical possibility that a subset of readers could get that idea. I'm willing to accept that risk.
I do consider some statements in some settings to be minor violations.
I remain open to negotiating a compromise. Let me know if you'd like to give that a try.
> A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
False. One match might -- but might not -- start a forest fire.
> B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
Did I post that? If so, could you show me where?
> C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here
False. I might allow some statements that I don't see as anti-Semitic, but others do.
> D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ
False.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:41:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> such posts ... provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
I agree, they could. So I see him as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change. One match doesn't have to start a forest fire.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2013, at 20:43:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:36:00
> > The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting
>
> That's true, there's the theoretical possibility that a subset of readers could get that idea. I'm willing to accept that risk.
>
> I do consider some statements in some settings to be minor violations.
>
> I remain open to negotiating a compromise. Let me know if you'd like to give that a try.
>
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
>
> False. One match might -- but might not -- start a forest fire.
>
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
>
> Did I post that? If so, could you show me where?
>
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here
>
> False. I might allow some statements that I don't see as anti-Semitic, but others do.
>
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ
>
> False.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You asked as to where there is that you posted that you did not have a way to determine if someone read something and they felt put down when they read it.
This comes from the following post where in "C", this is brought out and you posted your answer to that as [...of course not...].
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 8:11:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> > > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> > 10,
> > You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
> > I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
> > A. I re write the question?
> > B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
> > C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
> > D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
> > E. something else
> > Lou
>
> 10derheart has no mandate to respond to any of Lou Pilder's questions. Simple.
>
> I would like to see Lou Pilder learn to be more sensitive to feelings others. I thought the observation made by 10derheart regarding his posts to her are accurate. Mr Pilder's subject lines are not terribly cryptic, and can be extrememly uncivil, especially when his posts allude to the behavior or character of others. In my estimation, such posts mutilate civility and provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I wonder if Mr. Pilder ever observes that he ask the same questions over and over again. To me, the majority of them seem rhetorical and act as statements to further an agenda.
>
> Lou Pilder, I will here ask my question of you a second time:
>
> > > I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate
>
> Do you hate 10derheart? YES or NO
>
> I love her. She is quite extraordinary.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Friends,
The issue here now is concerning statements that could lead a Jew, or Islamic person or others that are in an organized religion that has an agenda not centered in Christ to feel put down when they read those statements in question. And now Mr Hsiung brings up as to what is a "minor" put down or a major put down.
Those statements that could lead people of other faiths to feel put down have been in the past sanctioned by the deputies or Mr. Hsiung.
The question to me here by Scott is if I hate a former deputy.
My question here is could not the deputies not using their power to sanction anti-Semitic statements cause outrage to Jews and other people of other faiths that also could feel put down when they read a statement that is allowed to stand that could lead those in question to feel put down? The feelings that Jews could have by seeing anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand by all of the deputies can cause a Jew to speculate as to why all of those deputies have not responded to the notifications that the deputies state to use that feature to report anti-Semitic statements. As to if that could cause me to hate them, I guess it could cause outrage and that could lead to hatred toward them for some to seek vengeance against them. But the God that I give service and worship to, which is the same as the Jews do, is a Sun and a Shield. And that God has a promise to those that give service and worship to Him, which is that He says that vengeance is His and not for those to seek such, for He will exact vengeance Himself. And hate is something that I can be shielded from penetrating me so that hatred does not destroy me. I hope that others reading here that are Jews or Islamic or the others that have their faith put down here also are shielded by their faith from the spears of hate that can be seen as coming at them.
The two statements in question that are those that could put down Jews and Islamic persons and the others in question are something like:
[...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if their aged is not centered in Christ...] and,
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
Lou
Here is a post of the past practice that defines in part what puts down those of other faiths.
[ faith, 690854 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-alhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2013, at 9:27:51
> > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > >
> > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> >
> > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> an,
> 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
Lou Pilder
To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
[ admin, 678224 ]
see verse 25
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 11:35:04
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > >
> > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > >
> > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > an,
> > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> Lou Pilder
> To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> [ admin, 678224 ]
> see verse 25
Friends,
Do you know where this comes from? And do you know how it has been used and by whom? It came way before 1933. To see where this comes from, and how there could be a subset of people that could think in anti-Semitic terms from reading such as the statements in question could be thought to be supportive and civil and good for this community as a whole by the nature that some could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and civil here, go to Google and type in:
[ Strateias.org, Luther ]
It is usually first and there is the word "Extracts" in the subject line.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 28, 2013, at 13:43:28
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstilburng, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 11:35:04
> > > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > > an,
> > > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> > But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> > In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> > Lou Pilder
> > To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> > [ admin, 678224 ]
> > see verse 25
> Friends,
> Do you know where this comes from? And do you know how it has been used and by whom? It came way before 1933. To see where this comes from, and how there could be a subset of people that could think in anti-Semitic terms from reading such as the statements in question could be thought to be supportive and civil and good for this community as a whole by the nature that some could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and civil here, go to Google and type in:
> [ Strateias.org, Luther ]
> It is usually first and there is the word "Extracts" in the subject line.
> Lou
>And here is a post that I think is relevent to this discussion. To see this post go to the search box at the botttom of this page and type in:
[ admin, 680453 ]
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:30:01
In reply to Re: daanzr » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:41:56
> > such posts ... provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I agree, they could. So I see him as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change.Perhaps, but I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. It is an uncivil act proscribed by law. Even someone with Asperger's Syndrome has some understanding of social norms, although they must keep this understanding organized in their minds as a set of logical and objective rules. Calling out someone as being complicit and a conspirator in the promotion of antisemitism is an uncivil act, and I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity, and perhaps even civic harmony
What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:38:03
In reply to Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 8:11:08
Lou Pilder's post was not addressed to me. It was addressed to "friends". Thus, adding my name as the previous poster goes beyond the rule proscribing 3 consecutive posts.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:52:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe, posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:38:03
> Lou Pilder's post was not addressed to me. It was addressed to "friends". Thus, adding my name as the previous poster goes beyond the rule proscribing 3 consecutive posts.
Sorry for my error. The posting rule proscribes posting more than 3 consecutive posts or the starting of more than 3 consecutive threads.
- Scott
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.htmlCan I post as much as I want?
Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread. More than that may discourage less confident posters from joining in. Giving them more of a chance makes it easier for them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
There are exceptions to every rule, and those to this one may include:
Responding to earlier posts one at a time.
Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.
During meltdowns, clarifying posts many times.
Keeping a diary.
-------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:14:58
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
>
> This comes from the following post where in "C", this is brought out and you posted your answerThanks. In that case: false, I still don't think I can predict whether a particular person will feel put down by a particular post. If I have a sense of the person, however, I may have a sense of whether they're likely to.
--
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address ... the two statements in question
I'm willing to address those statements. What I'd like is to reach a compromise regarding how to address them.
--
> seeing anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand ... could lead to hatred ... hate is something that I can be shielded from penetrating me so that hatred does not destroy me. I hope that others reading here ... also are shielded ... from the spears of hate
Hate is a problem when it leads to spears.
Here, (1) we don't have to worry about spears, only words, and (2) support could lessen words of hate. Hurt can lead to hate. If posters who feel hurt by words of hate receive support, they may be less likely to respond with their own words of hate (and matches won't lead to forest fires).
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:31:23
In reply to bingcuvrdwthdawgcrpizknotateechablemomnt » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:30:01
> I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
>
> What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
Bob
PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?
Posted by SLS on November 29, 2013, at 17:27:47
In reply to Re: dog crap, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:31:23
> > I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
> >
> > What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
>
> One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
>
> If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively. Is there a privilege for slinging dog crap at each other simply because we may have a shield within us?
Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other. Stop people from accusing others of hate and antisemitism. If you are having trouble judging antisemitism, I suggest you take a few minutes to explore this issue using the search tools offered by the Internet.
You protect Lou Pilder at the expense of all others. Are you protecting a privilege that we now have to falsely accuse others of actively fostering antisemitism? If you feel that Lou Pilder has an unalienable right to to hurt others, I don't understand why others can't do the same reciprocally - just for fun. We, as a community, are not dullards when it comes to exercising a bit of logic when considering your behavior as the moderator of the Psycho-Babble forums. Logic does not equate to Truth.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:31:17
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > >
> > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > >
> > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > an,
> > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> Lou Pilder
> To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> [ admin, 678224 ]
> see verse 25Mr. Hsiung,
Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion. It is by another member that shows that this is not a one-person issue concerning statements that could put down Jews, that if remain unsanctioned, could lead a subset of readers to think that statements that could put down Jews are (redacted by respondent).
Lou Pilder
[ admin, 854229 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:34:23
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phzdr, posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:31:17
> > > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > > an,
> > > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> > But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> > In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> > Lou Pilder
> > To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> > [ admin, 678224 ]
> > see verse 25
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion. It is by another member that shows that this is not a one-person issue concerning statements that could put down Jews, that if remain unsanctioned, could lead a subset of readers to think that statements that could put down Jews are (redacted by respondent).
>
> Lou Pilder
> [ admin, 854229 ]correction
[ admin, 845229 ]
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.