![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 160 to 184 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:07:45
In reply to Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45
Nikki,
You wrote that [I am still answering the same argument].
What this discussion concerns is , as I see it, is a discussion that is asking Dr. Bob, by me, to state his rational for the restraining of my post,which is:
[The Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me]
and then allowing the other poster's post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him] andthat I have not seen his rational clearly and I am asking him to state it so that I could understand why one post is accepted and my post is not OK. If I recieve a clear answer to the clarification that I have requested, then this discussion could reach a conclusion. I do not see a clear rational ,yet, and I have told you why it is not clear to me . I also have posted that I would not accept the offer of writing something that I was not told, for that would cause me to break anothe commandment to me by my God and I have posted that in this discussion. I have also posted that my post does not pressure others or put down others, as I will be accused of if I post the post in question, bcause the other poster's post has not been deemed to pressure others or put down others and I have posted my explinations for that, and I am asking for clarification as to why I will be subjected to such an accusation and the other poster has not been. If this becomes clarified, then the discussion could end.
Lou
I have posted the concept of "Ex Post Facto" and why the United Staes Constitution says that that concept is unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:32:53
In reply to *deep breath* here I goooooo.... » Lou Pilder, posted by SandraDee on October 28, 2002, at 13:59:17
Sandra Dee,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
The major discussion now is [not] about the verse in Psalm 14, but about that I will be restrained from posting:
[The Rider, who is the word of God in my experiance, said to me ,..I am your God... you shall have no other Gods before me] and that the post [Jesus became our salvation to all those that obey Him]was not restrained.
I am responding, also, to Dr. Bob's invitation to discuss this for he wants us to discuss what we think about the opening page for the faith board could include in its guide to post. that invitation is a good one and I beleive in open discussion and I am glad that you are present in this discusson and I thank you for your particpaton
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:49:28
In reply to Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:25:06
Lou.
You would not falsey be reporting your prophet. or is this more important to you than taking into account the feelings of other people??
There is a difference in thos etwo postings.
Your's is saying that everyone should believe in him
the other is saying that you will get salvation if you believe in him. I don't believe in salvation, so I don't ask for it, and don't care whether I get it.
Your many many posts imply that I am a lesser person for not believing i him. That is where the difference lies.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:53:37
In reply to Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:18:32
[The rider said to me, I am your God and you shall not have any other Gods before me] - yes, I find that acceptable.
I know that you're talking about yourself in your posts, and I know that you mean that the rider talks only to you.
But not everyone reads ALL of your posts, and not everyone is of the same level of intelligence as I am.I just feel it would be easier all round if you made it clear in EACH post that the rider was talking just to you.
How about a disclaimer at the top of the post along the lines of "All words said by the rider in the this are directed towards me (Lou) and no one else"Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:55:14
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:49:28
Nikki,
You say that [I would not {falsly} be reporting your prophet]
I am sorry, but I would be falsly reporting if I reported somethng other than what I heard.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:55:32
In reply to Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:38:38
Again Lou. it is all in the wording.
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:59:01
In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (7), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:50:48
I know nothung of Dr Bobs rational. I was just giving my opinion Lou. I thought I made that clear in my post.
I have now said quite a few times why I thought the post about jesus and salvation was ok to me, but not yours.
I am not going to continue to repeat the same thing time and time again.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 15:02:48
In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (8), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 13:08:28
The Rider said to him, "Only a fool in his heart says that there is no God."
This makes out that anyone who does not believe in god is a fool. I do not believe in god in my heart or anywher else, so thus I am a fool. I am offended at being called a fool.
"Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him]"
I don't believe in salvation as I don't feel I ahve naything to be saved from. So this didn't offend me as it didn't say anything that I believe in.I believe in fools, and so objected to be called one. I don't believe in salvation so didn't object to being told I couldn't get it!
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 15:10:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:53:37
Nikki,
Thank you for agreeing with me that the post in question would be acceptable to you. So the way that I see it is that you would suggest that DR. Bob would put the following on the opening page of the faith board :
Notice fron Dr. Bob: [The posts that you read on the faith board are expeiances in indviduals faith and they do not mean that they are directed for other people to accept. Example: If someone says that Jesus is their savior, that does not mean that they are telling you to have Jesus as your savior] or some other disclaimer?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
In reply to Lou's acceptance of Nikki's idea » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 15:10:37
Dr. Bob has recently changed the rules (although he may prefer the word clarification, it really amounts to a rule change) of posting on the faith board. The reason the quotes about Christianity were allowed and your proposed statement is not is all about timing. The quotes you are referring to were made before the rule change. I believe you were allowed to post many things before the rule change that might not be allowed now.
The only way you can conclude that Dr. Bob is favoring one religion over another is if *future* posts, posts made after the clarified rules, are allowed to be posted in favor of one religion but ones in favor of another religion are not. Why don't you wait and see. I think you will find that Dr. Bob will apply these new and far clearer rules in an evenhanded way. Certainly it is unfair to accuse him of anything without waiting to see. You can't use posts from the past.
I also don't think you need to worry about Dr. Bob deleting your prior posts that were allowable under the old rules but would not now be allowable. I really don't think he will delete your posts. I also don't think that anyone else's posts will be deleted. Nor will anyone be PBC'd or anything for a post that took place before the rule clarification, I'm sure. Please don't upset yourself about something that is unlikely to happen. You have stated that all this is bad for your health. Please wait and see if something happens before you get upset. It would be far better for your health, I'm sure.
Take care, Lou. And please watch the faith board to see if the new rules are unevenly applied before you upset yourself over potential unfairness.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 19:30:42
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
Could you clarify if you are saying that there has been a rule change and that now I can post:
[The Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, said to me,...I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me]?
If so, what was the change in the rules that would now allow the post tp be posted now, nd not before the rule change? If you could clarify that is the new way to look at my post, then could I consider this discussion to be moot or are you only saying that it is your opinion that I could post the post in question now? If you could clarify that it allowable or not now to post it, then if it is OK, then I could continue in completing The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life .
Lou?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 21:16:18
In reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 19:30:42
I'm sorry Lou, I wasn't clear. I meant that Dr. Bob just clarified the rules of the Faith Board to become more restrictive, and the statement that you wish to make is would appear to be not allowable under the current rules.
However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule change.
It is only fair, in my opinion, to base any decisions about whether Dr. Bob is being fair in the application of the rules by looking at posts made after the rule clarification, not before.
That is what I meant. I'm afraid that the statement you wish to make does sound like it wouldn't be allowed under the new rules. But neither would any similar statement by those of a different faith.
I hope I was more clear this time, although I suspect that perhaps I wasn't. I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my former post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 21:45:04
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 21:16:18
Dinah,
You wrote,[However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule changes]
Are you saying that before the new rule, that Dr. Bob was unfair and that the new rules will make the future to be fair? If so, how will the new rule change the unfairness, if it was unfair before the change? If you can clarify that for me, then I could better communicate with you in this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:06:49
In reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 21:45:04
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule changes]
> Are you saying that before the new rule, that Dr. Bob was unfair and that the new rules will make the future to be fair? If so, how will the new rule change the unfairness, if it was unfair before the change? If you can clarify that for me, then I could better communicate with you in this discussion.
> Lou
>I'll be happy to clarify that Lou. I did not (of course) say that Dr. Bob was unfairly applying the rules either before or after the rule change. I said that Dr. Bob had clarified the rules for the relatively new faith board. I said that you were comparing posts from before the rule change with prospective posts after the rule change and concluding that Dr. Bob was being unfair to you. And that doing so was not fair to Dr. Bob, in my opinion.
Again, in my opinion only, Dr. Bob is only being unfair if he applied the old rules in a way that were unfair to you *before* the rule change. Or if he applies the new rules in a way that is unfair to you *after* the rule change. And that you can't compare posts from *before* and *after*.
As an example, suppose a school changes the dress code. Before the dress code was changed, it was ok to wear T-Shirts to school. After only shirts with collars are allowed. Now say a student wears a T-Shirt to school after the rule change and is sent home to change. That student can't claim that he is being unfairly treated because last year (before the change in the dress code) another student was allowed to wear a T-shirt. But he could claim that he is being unfairly treated if another student was allowed to wear a T-shirt after the change in the dress code, while he was not allowed to wear one.
Now mind you, the students can (and almost certainly would) complain that the change in dress code was a bad idea. Just as you can complain that you don't like the new rules on the faith board. Goodness only knows, I complained enough about the 2000 and 2001 boards. It didn't have an effect on the outcome, but I did complain.
But I am merely suggesting that you wait and watch for future posts on the faith board, and if you think someone is being treated differently from you under the new rules to ask for a rationale at that point.
The rationale at this point is that the new rules were not yet in place when the posts you keep referring to were made.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:07:42
In reply to Re: Dinah, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:06:49
I obviously have a problem with this. Sorry for all the Oops posts. :(
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (8), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 13:08:28
> It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
> [The Rider said to me "I am your God amd you shall have no other Gods before me."]Yes, so posting it again will mean being blocked again.
> I am asking for the desrimatory rational that says that my post will be restrained...
See my earlier posts in this thread.
> > "He (referring to Jesus) bcame the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." - Hebrew 5:9 (Revised Standard version)
> The post ... has the imperitve implication, as I see it, that people that believe in their heart that there is no God are not going to be saved, for just believing is not enough for salvation, for it is to {obey Jesus} that is connected with salvation in that post. And the "our", to me, inplies that the obeying is to be done by all to get salvation.
Sorry, but I don't see any imperative there. It doesn't say that all *should* obey him. Neither, BTW, does it say that *only* those who obey him will receive eternal salvation.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:25:15
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
I am reading the many posts involved in this discussion and I was hopeing that you could clarify some of the things that you wrote in your posts in this discussion.
You wrote [the reason the quotes about Christianity were allowed, and your poposed is not, is all about timeing].
Could you clarify the following for me? If you could, I could better understand what you have posted relevant to this discussion and be better able to communicate with you.
According to what you posted, If the quotes about Christianity that were OK when they were posted were posted now, are you saying that they would be OK in relation to the modification that was recently made to the opening page of the faith board or would the modification restrain the post now; [...jesus became our eternal salvation... that obey Him...]? If you could clarify this, then I will have a better undestanding of what [...is all about timing] means in this dicussion.
BestRegards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:38:12
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
Although Dr. Bob commented that the post in question does not fall into the same rational for restraint as my proposed post, I am unclear as to whether the new rule for the faith board that you are referring to would restrain it on the basis of the new rules, for after reading all the posts, I think that I remember you writing in one of your posts that the new rules were [more] restrictive.
So if you could clarify as to whether the new rules change that, I could be better able to understand all the different "timing" situations that you ae writing about in your posts for this discussion and I will be better able to give better responses to your posts.
Best Regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:51:53
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
You wrote: [the only way you can conclude that Dr. Bob is favoring one religion over another is if *future* posts made after the clarified rules, are allowed to be posted in favor of one religion but ones in favor of another religion are not]
Could you clarify why you are writing that there is only the way that you write of to determine if there is favoritism made to one poster over another?
If you could, then I could be better able to communicate with yo in this discussion.
Besr Regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 22:46:55
In reply to Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:51:53
I'm sorry Lou, but I clarified what I meant to the limits of my abilities. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be of more help to you.
At any rate, it probably doesn't make much difference. Dr. Bob has explained things to you in his above post, and so now you know what his rationale is. I'm sure that is more helpful to you than any posts I could make.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:14:32
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
Dr. Bob,
You have wrote to me when I asked you to write your rational for acceptablity or restraint in posting faith experiances here to, "see my earlier posts in this thread." Now I have done that and located so far the following:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7724.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7795.html
One of your rationals says that your rational is based on if the post puts down others. Another is if the post pressures others and the other is the use of an imperitive. If there are other parts that I have not discovered that you use in your rational , could you point them out to me with the URL? If there is one or more rationals in existance thatI have not located as of yet, then examining them would also help to determine acceptability before posting.
I would like to focus ,first, in relation to that you wrote in the post that I am answering ,"Sorry, but I don't see any imperitive there. It doesn't say that all *should* obey him. Niether, BTW, does it say that *only those that obey Him will recieve eternal salvation."
Could you clarify if you are saying that the proposed post of mine that you will restrain *does* imply that others *should* do something when in the proposed post the Rider is talking directly to me in my experiance? If so, could you point out the implication and clarify why the other post does not have an implication? If you could clarify that, then I could be better able to determine aceptability to future posts here because ther are posts that also use impertives and they have not been restrained.
Also , are you saying that in my proposed post that I am writing something in it that says that *only* is implied? If so, could you clarify that so that can have a better understanding of this rational in order to determine acceptability here for future posts?
Also, in your statement about "imperitve" that is in he link that I have listed in this post, are you saying that just by having the word [shall] in the post that that in and of itself makes the post to be restrained? If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding in regards to posting here because there are other posts on the faith board that have *shall* in an imperitive. Could you clarify if the following post is acceptable in regards to the rationals used o determin acceptability orresraint? If youcould, then it would help me to understand better your rational for posting on yhr faith board and could make a better decision on whether to post a post or not.
1)[....and you shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever]
2)[not evryone that says to me ,Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of heaven...]
3) [..but the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,God has said, You shall not eat of it, niether shall you touch it, lest you die.],
4)[And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.]
Best Regards,
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:59:06
In reply to Lou's request for clarification from Dr Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:14:32
Dr. bob,
Could you clarify if your revised guidlines on the faith board now changes the rational for acceptance or restraint of a post on that board as to the acceptance or restraint of the previous posts before the revision or does the revision just give more clarification?
If it does, are you saying that the revised guidlines could restrict posts that were previously accepted before the revision and if so, could yo give an example of what will now be restrained that was not restrained before the revision ? If you could clarify that, then I will have a better understanding of what is acceptable and what will be restrained now, in regards to what was restrained or accepted before the revision, if there is any change, and that could help me in determing as to whether or not my post will be accepted or restraind before I post it.
Best Regards,
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 10:19:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
Dr. Bob,
In your admonishment to me in this post of yours that I am responding to, you highlight:
[...the post has imperative implications, as I see it, that.... implies , to me,...]. I stipulated that what I posted is what, to me, and was , as I see it, is an implication ,as I see it.
Your response was:
[Sorry, but I don't see any...., niether does it say...]
If this is the crux of the reason for equating me with uncivilness, could you clarify if it that I have a different view from yours, and that is the reason that you are equating me with uncivilness, or that there is some other reason that you are equating me with uncivilnes in this post and could you give me the other reason, if there is another reason, so that I can examine that reason in order that I can have a better understanding of your rational in regards to this post ? If you could, I could have a better understanding of what your rationals are for determining uncivilness and post accodingly to accomodate your rational.
Best Regards
Lou Pilder
Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 18:15:27
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 18:47:15
> 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.
. . .and this was a good use of your time? You do not resent having to study these fine shades of civil lest Smokey stomp on your ember?
Or an ember he even *suspects* you might be harboring.
Smokey the Bear a Fascisti? Shovel as fascist method of control? Amusing images. .
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2002, at 19:07:37
In reply to Request for clarification from Dr. Bob(3) » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 10:19:36
> Also, in your statement about "imperitve" that is in he link that I have listed in this post, are you saying that just by having the word [shall] in the post that that in and of itself makes the post to be restrained?
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7871.html
> Could you clarify if your revised guidlines on the faith board now changes the rational for acceptance or restraint of a post on that board as to the acceptance or restraint of the previous posts before the revision or does the revision just give more clarification?
I differ a little with Dinah on this one, I don't think of them as revised, just as explained more.
> [...the post has imperative implications, as I see it, that.... implies , to me,...]. I stipulated that what I posted is what, to me, and was , as I see it, is an implication ,as I see it.
> Your response was:
> [Sorry, but I don't see any...., niether does it say...]The thing is, people don't always take what's posted the way the poster intends. So it comes down to me making a (subjective) decision. It isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect, but I do try to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
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.