![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2006, at 15:45:56
DR. Hsiung,
In your response concerning the ongoing discussion here that involves posts here that have been used for centuries in tactics of historical state-sponsored antisemitism, and have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or IMO to foster defamation toward Jews due to that those posts in question are not sanctioned IMO as other posts of the same nature that accuse or put down others or are not sensitive to the feeelings of others, I have asked that those posts be notated as being uncivil. You have posted:
[...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's {more helpful} to focus on the past or on the present...].
I ask if you could clarify:
A. Are you saying that you not concerned at all about discrimination here?
B. Are you saying that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is {more helpful}to not notate them as being uncivil?
If so,
1.could you clarify as to what you mean by who, if it is members, it could be {more helpful} to, by not sanctioning the posts in question as other posts are?
2. Are you saying that some members here could be helped here by continueing to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could those members be helped by that?
3. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the Jewish community to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could it be more helpful to them?
4. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the community as a whole to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, I am a member of the whole, so could you write here how in your opinion it could be more helpful to me?
5.something else
C. Could you clarify as to why you were willing to remedy a post that used language that put down Christians, and are not willing at this time to remedy posts that IMO have language that puts down Jews?
D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
E. other clarifications
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 23:04:50
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2006, at 15:45:56
> D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
No. But I do think that in general, fresh matches pose more of a risk than used ones.
Bob
Posted by 64Bowtie on December 15, 2006, at 6:42:09
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 23:04:50
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2006, at 7:19:50
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 23:04:50
> > D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
>
> No. But I do think that in general, fresh matches pose more of a risk than used ones.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
In your above reply to me, you wrote that you think that there are {fresh} matches and {used} ones.
That may be. But we here are talking about the >effects and reults of the match already struck <and the fire that has been caused by the match. I would like to show posts so that others could make their own determination as to if the fires are still burning or not.Could not the original match give off more fire that has could spread to another forum? And could there not be posts here that IMO are from those posts in question that I feel could have been not posted if the original posts were addressed as being uncivl? And I feel that all the posts that are of the nature that are statements that have been used for centuries to spread antisemitic hate and foster defamation toward Jews that could have been addressed here as being uncivil, could be addressed now to let people that read those post in question in the present know for sure that this forum repudiates all forms of antisemitism. Could not one here read in the present those posts in question and maybe get the idea that the embers are still glowing so that one could cause another fire to arrise from those posts?
Is not the fire still on this forum, not put out? Can I post the posts that are still able to be seen in the present and allow others to make their own determination as to if those posts has to potential to have come from those posts in question that were allowed to to be posted without them being notated as uncivil? I think that you have the abiity to address those posts and have a message posted that the posts are not civil. Then, I think that the fire will be quenched, at least at its source.
You have made new rules when I rejoined the forum that I am not sure of as to if I can or can not post posts here from other members, so I will not show the forum these posts at this time untill I know what your new rules entail. Those that have emailed me have seen only up to 17 of them. There are much more, each one with IMO the capability to start new fires here or somewhere else.
Your policy that allows your deputies to not intervene also allows them to be unwilling to post a repudiation from the forum's administrative team to those posts in question. Your rule that now prohibits me from posting content that shows historical state-sponsored tactics that have been used for centuries to spread antisemitic hate has the potential IMO to keep me from offering the support and education from my perspective that I could offer here.
I ask.(A) If there is a need to make new rules , could those rules be civil if they keep me from offering support and education from my perspective?(B)If the reader here would like to support DR. Hsiung here, could you take into considerstion that DR. Hsiung has just posted [..And it's actually *because* this site deals with mental health that civility is valued so highly...]. And also, he has posted something like that he has archives so that new people can see what it is like here. And also he writes something like to to trust him and that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole. Well, I am part of the whole. Is it good for me to have posts that have been used for centuries to spread antisemitic hate to remain here without them being notated as uncivil by the administration? If you could keep those things in mind ,and perhaps email me to see the posts in quesion if you like, then I could have the oportunity to respond accordingly to whatever you post in support of DR. Hsiung.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2006, at 11:43:51
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 23:04:50
> > D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
>
> No. But I do think that in general, fresh matches pose more of a risk than used ones.
>
> Bob
Friends,
It is written here as a response from a meber to Dr. Hsiung's statement to me about fresh matches pose more of a risk than used ones,[...Oh so true...].
My friends, do not fires linger way beyond the time that the match goes out? Could not the fires of hate still be burning because the original fire ,even though it went out, rekindled in another place from the sparks that were carried by the winds because the original fire was allowed to burn and not put out when it was seen innitially?
The winds that carried antisemitism that was not stopped in Europe untill 1947 culminated in the murder of millions of people, 1 1/2 million of them Jewish children whose crime to be snetenced to death according to their murderers, was that they perhaps had a sister of their mother be a Jew.
Are there not fires still burning today? If so, I think that we could all be hurt by these fires and that they have the potential IMO to affect all of us. Were there people that were silent in Europe before 1947? Were there consequences to their silence? Have you not read what the great British/Irish philosopher,Edmund Burke said? He said,[...All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2006, at 14:56:23
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 23:04:50
Friends,
If you are considering to respond to aspects of this thread, I am asking you to consider the following in any response.
DR. Hsiung has used the analogy of that one match can start a forest fire. You can do a search to see what was the discussion about where he posted that. Dr. Hsiung's latest reply to me says that[...fresh matches pose more of a risk than used ones...]
But when a fire is started, it can spread. The spread of the fire is contingent on several factors. One is how long it takes for the fire to be put out. Another is if the fire is allowed to continue to burn. Another is the winds and the rain and the number of fire-fighters willing to put out the fire. I find no hope at this time, except for the hope of rain, in my quest to have the posts in question notated as being uncivil here.
But I have come to the waters. I have seen that the heavens are higher than the earth. And I believe that the rains will come down to bring forth the bud that may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater.
For I have seen that day when you shall go out with joy, and be led out with peace and the mountains and the hills shall break forth in singing before you. And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 3:28:38
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2006, at 7:19:50
> Could not the original match give off more fire that has could spread to another forum? And could there not be posts here that IMO are from those posts in question that I feel could have been not posted if the original posts were addressed as being uncivl?
Hmm, have you considered proposing something in the "more research here" thread above?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2006, at 14:56:50
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 14, 2006, at 15:45:56
> DR. Hsiung,
> In your response concerning the ongoing discussion here that involves posts here that have been used for centuries in tactics of historical state-sponsored antisemitism, and have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or IMO to foster defamation toward Jews due to that those posts in question are not sanctioned IMO as other posts of the same nature that accuse or put down others or are not sensitive to the feeelings of others, I have asked that those posts be notated as being uncivil. You have posted:
> [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's {more helpful} to focus on the past or on the present...].
> I ask if you could clarify:
> A. Are you saying that you not concerned at all about discrimination here?
> B. Are you saying that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is {more helpful}to not notate them as being uncivil?
> If so,
> 1.could you clarify as to what you mean by who, if it is members, it could be {more helpful} to, by not sanctioning the posts in question as other posts are?
> 2. Are you saying that some members here could be helped here by continueing to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could those members be helped by that?
> 3. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the Jewish community to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could it be more helpful to them?
> 4. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the community as a whole to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, I am a member of the whole, so could you write here how in your opinion it could be more helpful to me?
> 5.something else
> C. Could you clarify as to why you were willing to remedy a post that used language that put down Christians, and are not willing at this time to remedy posts that IMO have language that puts down Jews?
> D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
> E. other clarifications
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
>Dr. Hsiung,
Your replies to me to the above requests of mine to you were something like asking me if I have considered asking those in another thread about research, and that you have not rescinded your statement that one match {can} start a forest fire and something like that new matches have a better chance of starting a fire than used ones.
I am requesting to find out from you if that is the only answer you are going to give me concernibng my original requests to you or not.
If it is, then I am unsure as to if in my request to you in (A), if you mean from your answwr to me that you are not concerned about discrimination here at all or if you are. I would like for you to clarify that for me.
If your answer is the only answer that you will post here in this thread, then I am unsure as to in (B),if you are saying from your answer that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is{more helpful}to not notate them as uncivil.
Then I am unsure as to if your answer means, if it is going to be your only answer, that if you mean (B), how your answer clarifies in (1),who it could be more helpful to, and in (2)how could members, if there are any, be helped by leaving those posts in question un noteted as being uncivil, and in (3), if you are saying that it could be more helpful to members of the Jewish community to leave the posts in question unsanctioned that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and in (4) if you are saying that it would be more helpfull for the community as a whole to leave those posts not notated as being uncivil. I am a member of the whole and I am asking if your answer says that it would be more helpful to me to leave those posts not notated as uncivil, how could in your opinion,that be?
I also asked for you to clarify why you are unwilling at this time to remedy posts that put down Jews, when you have done so with a post that put down Christians. Does your answer answer that? If so, could you clarify how, for I am unsure about this at this time.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2006, at 16:12:07
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 3:28:38
DR. Hsiung,
You asked me if I have considered proposing the following to a thread here about "more research here". This was in response to :
A. could the fire spread to another forum?
B. could there be posts that if the original post was notated as being uncivil, that those posts would not have been posted?
You have posted that one match >can< start a forest fire. You have also posted something like that because this is a mental health forum, civility is stressed highly.
I am unsure as to what any research could be done to establish what. Is not your post having the grammatical structure that it is a conclusion that one match >can< start a forest fire? If it is research that you are referring to to establish that, I am unsure as to what you mean.
As to the fire spreading to another forum, I am unsure as to what the research could be done to establish if that has happened other than for those interested to see for themselves and, I guess, they could ask the posters if what they saw here influenced them or not to post what they posted there.
To go back to your question to me, if someone here wants to do research on any topic and I could be of help to them, I would be willing and they could email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 6:20:08
In reply to Lou's reply to DR. Hsiung's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2006, at 14:56:50
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > In your response concerning the ongoing discussion here that involves posts here that have been used for centuries in tactics of historical state-sponsored antisemitism, and have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or IMO to foster defamation toward Jews due to that those posts in question are not sanctioned IMO as other posts of the same nature that accuse or put down others or are not sensitive to the feeelings of others, I have asked that those posts be notated as being uncivil. You have posted:
> > [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's {more helpful} to focus on the past or on the present...].
> > I ask if you could clarify:
> > A. Are you saying that you not concerned at all about discrimination here?
> > B. Are you saying that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is {more helpful}to not notate them as being uncivil?
> > If so,
> > 1.could you clarify as to what you mean by who, if it is members, it could be {more helpful} to, by not sanctioning the posts in question as other posts are?
> > 2. Are you saying that some members here could be helped here by continueing to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could those members be helped by that?
> > 3. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the Jewish community to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could it be more helpful to them?
> > 4. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the community as a whole to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, I am a member of the whole, so could you write here how in your opinion it could be more helpful to me?
> > 5.something else
> > C. Could you clarify as to why you were willing to remedy a post that used language that put down Christians, and are not willing at this time to remedy posts that IMO have language that puts down Jews?
> > D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
> > E. other clarifications
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
> >
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> Your replies to me to the above requests of mine to you were something like asking me if I have considered asking those in another thread about research, and that you have not rescinded your statement that one match {can} start a forest fire and something like that new matches have a better chance of starting a fire than used ones.
> I am requesting to find out from you if that is the only answer you are going to give me concernibng my original requests to you or not.
> If it is, then I am unsure as to if in my request to you in (A), if you mean from your answwr to me that you are not concerned about discrimination here at all or if you are. I would like for you to clarify that for me.
> If your answer is the only answer that you will post here in this thread, then I am unsure as to in (B),if you are saying from your answer that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is{more helpful}to not notate them as uncivil.
> Then I am unsure as to if your answer means, if it is going to be your only answer, that if you mean (B), how your answer clarifies in (1),who it could be more helpful to, and in (2)how could members, if there are any, be helped by leaving those posts in question un noteted as being uncivil, and in (3), if you are saying that it could be more helpful to members of the Jewish community to leave the posts in question unsanctioned that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and in (4) if you are saying that it would be more helpfull for the community as a whole to leave those posts not notated as being uncivil. I am a member of the whole and I am asking if your answer says that it would be more helpful to me to leave those posts not notated as uncivil, how could in your opinion,that be?
> I also asked for you to clarify why you are unwilling at this time to remedy posts that put down Jews, when you have done so with a post that put down Christians. Does your answer answer that? If so, could you clarify how, for I am unsure about this at this time.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dena on January 8, 2009, at 1:30:50
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-efctsnprsnt?, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 6:20:08
It looks to me that the solution is to stall, by not answering questions, thereby making a mockery of the stated guidelines, leaving things hanging until everyone forgets about them, and then allowing them to become part of the buried archives.
From my perspective, there appears to be an inequitable bias in operation here ...
*Why* are Lou's questions continually ignored?
*Why* is an unjust situation allowed to continue?
*Why* are this forum's stated guidelines ignored by those who run and moderate this forum...?
(i.e., the inept and moot notification system -- I've supposedly recieved a response, but have not; shall I add my voice to Lou's for the next ... ohh, let's see, 4 years and counting?)
Shalom, Dena
Posted by fayeroe on February 27, 2009, at 9:58:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-efctsnprsnt?, posted by Dena on January 8, 2009, at 1:30:50
> It looks to me that the solution is to stall, by not answering questions, thereby making a mockery of the stated guidelines, leaving things hanging until everyone forgets about them, and then allowing them to become part of the buried archives.
>
> From my perspective, there appears to be an inequitable bias in operation here ...
>
> *Why* are Lou's questions continually ignored?
> *Why* is an unjust situation allowed to continue?
> *Why* are this forum's stated guidelines ignored by those who run and moderate this forum...?
>
> (i.e., the inept and moot notification system -- I've supposedly recieved a response, but have not; shall I add my voice to Lou's for the next ... ohh, let's see, 4 years and counting?)
>
> Shalom, DenaNow if we could just be administered a drug that killed our memories...everything would be hunky-dory. I have had the experience, over the years, to see that hope springs eternal when it comes to the sticky business here.....
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2009, at 10:07:48
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-efctsnprsnt?, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 6:20:08
> > > DR. Hsiung,
> > > In your response concerning the ongoing discussion here that involves posts here that have been used for centuries in tactics of historical state-sponsored antisemitism, and have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or IMO to foster defamation toward Jews due to that those posts in question are not sanctioned IMO as other posts of the same nature that accuse or put down others or are not sensitive to the feeelings of others, I have asked that those posts be notated as being uncivil. You have posted:
> > > [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's {more helpful} to focus on the past or on the present...].
> > > I ask if you could clarify:
> > > A. Are you saying that you not concerned at all about discrimination here?
> > > B. Are you saying that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is {more helpful}to not notate them as being uncivil?
> > > If so,
> > > 1.could you clarify as to what you mean by who, if it is members, it could be {more helpful} to, by not sanctioning the posts in question as other posts are?
> > > 2. Are you saying that some members here could be helped here by continueing to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could those members be helped by that?
> > > 3. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the Jewish community to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could it be more helpful to them?
> > > 4. Are you saying that it would be more helpful to the community as a whole to leave posts of the nature in question unnotated as being uncivil? If so, I am a member of the whole, so could you write here how in your opinion it could be more helpful to me?
> > > 5.something else
> > > C. Could you clarify as to why you were willing to remedy a post that used language that put down Christians, and are not willing at this time to remedy posts that IMO have language that puts down Jews?
> > > D. Have you rescinded your statement here that says that one match can start a forest fire?
> > > E. other clarifications
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686322.html
> > >
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > Your replies to me to the above requests of mine to you were something like asking me if I have considered asking those in another thread about research, and that you have not rescinded your statement that one match {can} start a forest fire and something like that new matches have a better chance of starting a fire than used ones.
> > I am requesting to find out from you if that is the only answer you are going to give me concernibng my original requests to you or not.
> > If it is, then I am unsure as to if in my request to you in (A), if you mean from your answwr to me that you are not concerned about discrimination here at all or if you are. I would like for you to clarify that for me.
> > If your answer is the only answer that you will post here in this thread, then I am unsure as to in (B),if you are saying from your answer that even if there is discrimination, you will not notate those posts as uncivil because it is{more helpful}to not notate them as uncivil.
> > Then I am unsure as to if your answer means, if it is going to be your only answer, that if you mean (B), how your answer clarifies in (1),who it could be more helpful to, and in (2)how could members, if there are any, be helped by leaving those posts in question un noteted as being uncivil, and in (3), if you are saying that it could be more helpful to members of the Jewish community to leave the posts in question unsanctioned that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and in (4) if you are saying that it would be more helpfull for the community as a whole to leave those posts not notated as being uncivil. I am a member of the whole and I am asking if your answer says that it would be more helpful to me to leave those posts not notated as uncivil, how could in your opinion,that be?
> > I also asked for you to clarify why you are unwilling at this time to remedy posts that put down Jews, when you have done so with a post that put down Christians. Does your answer answer that? If so, could you clarify how, for I am unsure about this at this time.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder procedure, the above.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder provision, the above.
Lou Pilder
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.