![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
I'm finally unblocked, and boy was I upset to see I had been blocked. The only thing that made it better was that most everyone saw it was an unjust blocking. THANK YOU to all those that stood up for me, even though Bob didn't back down, I really appreciate the support.
Also, I'm saddened by those that want to leave (even I want to leave!) because of this admin. problem. I'm sorry because it was me (the straw that broke y'alls back-so to speak), but I know from what's been posted that it isn't REALLY my fault you are leaving, it's just the way things are ran and the fact that he wouldn't budge when he knew he was wrong (I'm sure he knew he was wrong, when so many nice people here stood up for me.)
I have NEVER, in my whole life, been accused of being uncivil nor unsupportive. I have been told I have the gift of encouragement. (Through an actual test given by the church.) I never told Lou not to speak, or post... I asked him to simply answer my questions simply (for ME) without using the terms City of Peace (where is that city again?????-never been answered!!!) and without using the term Rider, (is that Jesus?? again, another question not answered!!) That's all I was saying. I was trying to understand Lou, and his beliefs. I now see that I (as well as many others) cannot converse with him.
I will ignore posts from him - simply - if that is what is necessary - and it seems it is. It is a shame though, since I've still never been answered those questions, and I've never had this problem in my life to where I have to completely avoid another person.
Sad day. Very sad day.
Also sad when a block goes even a day longer than it should, (especially an unjust blocking) with only a "tee hee - oops" about it.
Posted by Dinah on July 10, 2002, at 17:49:32
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
It's good to see you back Sandra Dee. (And I'm trying to picture Dr. Bob saying tee hee.)
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:25:12
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
SandraDee,
Thank you for returning to this board. I have been blocked 4 times for a total of 11 weeks. I might be #1.
Sometimes a block is good , for it gives you shelter from the storm going on at the time. I realise that sometimes one must be excluded for their own benifit. And the block may appear to be questionable.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:36:10
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
SandraDee,
I am glad that you posted this post tonight. You see, I did answer the two questions that you thought that I did not answer.
The first question, where is the City of Peace?
The City of Peace is Jeru Sholom.(Hebrew) This translates to Jerusalem in English. Now I am not referring to the Jerusalem on the Earth now. The Jerusalem that I am referring to is in the future. I described it in one of my other posts. there is also a Jerusalem in our hearts that we can also travel to, for it is the City of Peace. There is a reference in the Bible for The City of Peace and it is called The New Jerusalem. The Anointed One is called the Prince of Peace.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:40:11
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
SandraDee,
The other question was "Is the Rider on the White Horse, Jesus?. SandraDee, I did answer that question.
The Rider on the White Horse is not the world's Jesus.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:49:55
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
SandraDee,
You have said that it is difficult to converse with me. And you are correct. But that does not mean that one should not converse. I do understand the difficulty, though, for what
I am saying is highly symbolic and can not be understood untill the end of the Road is reached. Then there will be an unvailing.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:54:55
In reply to I'm back, and I didn't mean to cause such upset..., posted by SandraDee on July 10, 2002, at 17:21:55
SandraDee,
You have saidf that you will ignore posts by me- if that is what is necessarry. SandraDee, it is not requiered to ignor my posts. You can discuss any questions that you may have with me. It is my desire to answer any and all questions , usually, right away. If there are any questions that you want me to answer, I would be glad to do so.
Lou
Posted by tina on July 10, 2002, at 21:56:25
In reply to Lou's response to SandraDees post » SandraDee, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:25:12
Lou wrote: "Thank you for returning to this board. I have been blocked 4 times for a total of 11 weeks. I might be #1."
Sorry dude, not by a long shot.
...and I believe that Sandra said she wasn't going to read your posts. It seems to me you are talking to yourself.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 22:08:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SandraDees post, posted by tina on July 10, 2002, at 21:56:25
Tina,
You saud that SandraDee will not read my posts. I am reaching a much larger audiance than the posters here. There are multitudes of readers that you do not see posting here. They read, but they do not post. When I post a response, it goes to both the posters and the readers.
I know of those that rejoice when they see my posts. They may not be the posters here, but they are listening just as the posters are .
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 22:12:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SandraDees post, posted by tina on July 10, 2002, at 21:56:25
Tina,
Do you know of someone that has been blocked more than 4 times for a total of 11 weeks?
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by oracle on July 10, 2002, at 22:40:56
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SandraDees post, posted by tina on July 10, 2002, at 21:56:25
> Sorry dude, not by a long shot.
>
> ...and I believe that Sandra said she wasn't going to read your posts. It seems to me you are talking to yourself.While I support Lou's right to post in whatever manner,
I do not read that as I feel manipulated by the part 1,2,3, ect.
To me if it is worth saying, then do so in one post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 22:49:21
In reply to Re: Lou's posting style, posted by oracle on July 10, 2002, at 22:40:56
Oracle,
You said .....do it in one post.
Could you tell me how the one-post would be more acceptable than the part 1.2.3... type post?
I am always interested in improving posting, so your answer will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by shar on July 11, 2002, at 0:02:23
In reply to Re: Lou's posting style » oracle, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 22:49:21
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2002, at 11:07:24
In reply to Lou's response to SandraDees post-part 2 » SandraDee, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 21:36:10
> I am glad that you posted this post tonight. You see, I did answer the two questions that you thought that I did not answer...
I'd like to keep it administrative here, so I've reposted your message to PBF:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/428.html
Bob
Posted by tina on July 11, 2002, at 14:02:19
In reply to Lou's response to Tina's post part-2 » tina, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2002, at 22:12:00
Yes I do know someone who has been blocked more often and for a longer length of time than you have. But, since you enjoy not answering the questions of others so much, I'm not going to tell you who it is.
goodbye Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2002, at 17:06:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Tina's post part-2, posted by tina on July 11, 2002, at 14:02:19
Tina,
I do not remember ever saying that I "enjoyed" not answering the questions of others. In fact, I have always tried to answer all questions directed to me in a prompt manner.
Tina, I consider your accusation that I "enjoy" not answering the questions of others to be a false accusation.
Lou
Posted by tina on July 11, 2002, at 21:40:06
In reply to Lou 's response to Tina's accusation » tina, posted by Lou Pilder on July 11, 2002, at 17:06:15
I wouldn't expect anything else.
Bye bye
This is the end of the 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.