![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 202 to 226 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2013, at 4:10:43
In reply to Lou's request-watizdadis » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2013, at 18:25:49
> > Likely not.
> >
> > But I occasionally am moved to try. If not as appeals to community interest then at least appeals to self interest.
> >
> > I have always thought Lou would be far more successful in his goals if he took a different approach.
> >
> > "Am I getting what I want with what I am doing?"
> >
> > "What could I do to increase my chances of achieving my goal?"
> >
> > And of course the answer to myself is "No." And sometimes "Nothing" and sometimes "I don't know. Maybe I'll try "this"."
> >
> > Clearly this won't work either.
> >
> >
>
> D,
> You wrote,[...clearly this won't work either...]
> I am unsure as to what you are anting to mean by the {this} in your statement. What is the {this{ that won't work?
> LouFriends,
If you are following my situation that I find myself in here, you could see that I am following the rules here as much as humanly possible to have Mr Hsiung take remedial action to purge statements that could put down Jews and those of other faiths. This is the prescribed way here to use the administrative board in relation to Mr. Hsiung's TOS to effect change. I know of no other way internally here to effect change. And I will continue to use the internal remedies available t all members here to effect change.
Now if you think that I am not going to have any success in effecting change, look here and see otherwise.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050578.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:13:53
In reply to correction Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-pstig/pstereo, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:51:53
> In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
I'm a little confused. The section you cite refers to moneychangers, not to Jews.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:23:24
In reply to Lou Pilder: Game over?, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 19:01:39
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
>
> > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
>
> How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?It takes more than adding "I believe" to make something civil. Alternatives that would be OK include:
> > What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for me to return back to God.
> > What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for people of my faith to return back to God.
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
--
> I look forward to following his posts on the Medication forum to see if his posture has changed, now that the forum is actively moderated.
How do you feel like it's going there? Are you responding the way you were before?
--
> I would suggest that no single poster has caused more civic disharmony than Lou Pilder.
> The boy who cried wolf over and over again when none existed eventually led people to ... no longer [respond] to his ... warnings. When a real wolf finally appeared, the boy's cries remained ignored and unanswered. The boy was killed and devoured by the wolf.
> It is good that you are vigilant in protecting Jews from antisemitism.
A poster who cries wolf can cause civic disharmony, but so can posters who don't find wolves (or feel accused of being wolves).
It is good to be vigilant. It can be self-destructive to be hypervigilant.
The role of the administration is to look for wolves. I'd like posters to leave that to me.
The role of posters is to support other posters -- even those who cry wolf. Try to separate the person from the behavior. Maybe they're hypervigilant for a reason.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 8:10:14
In reply to correction Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-pstig/pstereo, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:51:53
> > > > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dinah
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > > > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > > [ faith,428781 ]
> > > > Lou PIlder
> > > > to
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
> > > You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Here are two posts for discussion. The posts have statements in them that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the posts can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you.
> > In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
> > The post is:
> > http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> > Then in this post, line #6 uses the word, {only} which precludes Jews and all other religions that have a different way than Christiandom. This could arouse hatred in particular but not limited toward the Jews.
> > The post is:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> > Lou Pilder
>
> The correction to the first link is:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.htmlMr Hsiung,
You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
The statement as it stands puts down at least Jews, and is an antisemitic statement as agreed by you here. For the statement as it stands says that Christianity is the only way for all humanity, which includes the Jews.
My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
Lou, I'm going to:
A. Leave the statement as it stands because it says what it says and that will be good for this community as a whole.
B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
C. I agree that the statement could be taken as an insult to Islamic and Jewish and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith that has their own pathway to return to God outside of Christianity, but I will still not post anything in the thread where the post appears because if those people could feel insulted when they read the statement,[...your answer here ...]
D. Something else.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 13:47:08
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:23:24
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> > > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> > How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
> It takes more than adding "I believe" to make something civil. Alternatives that would be OK include:
> * What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for me to return back to God.
> * What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for people of my faith to return back to God.
I don't feel that your suggested statements are any better than mine. They are, perhaps, worse.I'll try to digest the rest of your post over the coming days.
How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" and accusing others of arousing antisemitism?
I'll deal with the Medication board separately.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 13:51:41
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:23:24
> The role of posters is to support other posters -- even those who cry wolf. Try to separate the person from the behavior.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1052380.html
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 13:52:10
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:13:53
> > In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
>
> I'm a little confused. The section you cite refers to moneychangers, not to Jews.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
The subject is the Biblical passage involving the temple and the moneychangers. The poster writes:
[...think of the scene where Jesus was smashing the tables of the moneychangers...].
This passage is what is in question and in the passage there is not what the poster adds to it. For centuries, this passage has been used to arouse anti-Semitic feelings as the moneychangers were said by those wanting to arouse hatred toward the Jews, to be Jewish merchants(inside) the Temple at Jerusalem. For those ignorant of Judaism, it was the Passover and Jews from all over the world came to the city to offer sacrifices and had to exchange their money for the money used at Jerusalem. The passage does not say a lot of what the poster wrote that can be seen in the poster's post. What the poster wrote is plainly visible and COULD be attributed to Jews. The poster does not specify who they were and I asked the poster to do that. There was no response and I gave the poster the opportunity to do so. And anyway, by what authority do you use, if any, to write that the passage refers to moneychangers, NOT to Jews? (emphasis mine). Could not the moneychangers be Jews? If not, why not?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 14:19:05
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 13:47:08
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
>
> > > > What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
>
> > > How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
>
> > It takes more than adding "I believe" to make something civil. Alternatives that would be OK include:
>
> > * What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for me to return back to God.
>
> > * What is Christianity? The religion that offers a pathway for people of my faith to return back to God.
>
> I don't feel that your suggested statements are any better than mine. They are, perhaps, worse.
>
> I'll try to digest the rest of your post over the coming days.
>
> How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" and accusing others of arousing antisemitism?
>
> I'll deal with the Medication board separately.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
If you are following this situation that I find myself in here, be advised that I am not crying wolf when I post my objections here to statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. As far as the poster of such statements being anti-Semitic, that can not be seen, and I would have to have a discovery deposition taken on the poster to bring something like that out. What is plainly visible here are statements that put down Jews being seen as supportive here. I am objecting to those and I will continue beyond anyone's posting about me here that could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held or induce hostile and disagreeable and disparaging opinions and feelings against me. I am not crying wolf or accusing anyone of being anti-Semitic. The posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr. Hsiung. I am offering Mr Hsiung the opportunity to take affirmative action and take remedial action by posting in the threads where the statements that put down Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive, for support takes precedence here according to Mr Hsiung. My question that I wonder about, is why would anyone want those statements to stand as supportive here?
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 14:46:23
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 2:23:24
If Jesus had been born in China of Chinese, then the populace within which he would have been immersed would have been Chinese and have had Chinese moneychangers.
It wasn't Jews who were singled out as moneychangers. It was the vocation of moneychanging amongst Jesus's own people who had angered him. It is a matter of locale.
It has been a ludicrous affair to argue religion in an attempt to determine the civility of a 5 year old post and the nature of agents that arouse antisemitism.
Dr. Bob. Stop kicking the can down the road by granting one person immunity from PBC and blocks. The noise is distracting. Deliver a judgment and be finished with it.
1. Just say it: I will not affix a PBC to the 5 year old religious post in question.
2. Cite overgeneralizations and false accusations used to claim that the posts of others arouse antisemitism by issuing PBC.
This is just for behavior on the Administration board. There is the Medication board to be considered.
I do separate the behaviors from the person. If you have been reading my posts carefully, you would know this.
I suggest that you, too, should separate the behavior from the person. You do not issue blocks for bad people. You block people so as to prevent uncivil posting behaviors. I think you should block Lou Pilder from posting as you would anyone else.
I don't think Lou Pilder's posting behaviors promote civic harmony; quite the contrary. I know it and you know it. Positive reinforcement doesn't work in this case.
I'm not going to argue religion anymore. If the conversation should head in the direction of administration, I might be interested in talking about judging posting behaviors without reference to Lou Pilder. That's really how this issue should have been handled in the first place.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on October 21, 2013, at 18:41:07
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 14:46:23
Amen and amen.
And on a much broader note...did I ever tell you how much you rock? If not, I should have done so. I will try to get up the focus and drive to do that more often when I post here. But if I don't (likely, with my track record) just know it is true.
OK?
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 19:11:23
In reply to Re: support » SLS, posted by 10derheart on October 21, 2013, at 18:41:07
> Amen and amen.
>
> And on a much broader note...did I ever tell you how much you rock? If not, I should have done so. I will try to get up the focus and drive to do that more often when I post here. But if I don't (likely, with my track record) just know it is true.
>
> OK?Okay.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on October 21, 2013, at 21:09:35
In reply to Lou's request to readers-nhottkryngwolph » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 14:19:05
Lou,
IMO, as long as you see your often-used description, i.e:
>>statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings
as factual, "plainly seen," obvious, and/or downplay/completely disregard the word **could** no meaningful dialog will take place. To me, this means they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination. I think you write this over and over again as a given, when it is anything but that.
As long as you cannot imagine or entertain the idea that for many Babblers, the statements you cite in posts are NOT...
>>plainly visible [here are] statements that put down Jews
no meaningful dialog will take place. I find when I am passionate about a thing, those are the times I must get myself to imagine the completely opposite POV in order to have meaningful dialog. I do that with you, the best I possibly can, but I just still can't conceive of these things as anti-Semitism.
>>posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr.[sic] Hsiung.
Did Dr. Bob say the above...exactly? I thought he said he could see how you could think one particular statement in one post *might* or *could* cause Jews or others to feel put down. Am I mistaken? Did he say an actual (not hypothetically) post or posts are anti-Semitic? Could you show me that?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 22:02:57
In reply to Re: Lou's request to readers-nhottkryngwolph » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on October 21, 2013, at 21:09:35
> Lou,
>
> IMO, as long as you see your often-used description, i.e:
>
> >>statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings
>
> as factual, "plainly seen," obvious, and/or downplay/completely disregard the word **could** no meaningful dialog will take place. To me, this means they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination. I think you write this over and over again as a given, when it is anything but that.
>
> As long as you cannot imagine or entertain the idea that for many Babblers, the statements you cite in posts are NOT...
>
> >>plainly visible [here are] statements that put down Jews
>
> no meaningful dialog will take place. I find when I am passionate about a thing, those are the times I must get myself to imagine the completely opposite POV in order to have meaningful dialog. I do that with you, the best I possibly can, but I just still can't conceive of these things as anti-Semitism.
>
> >>posts that put down Jews are anti-Semitic posts by the agreement of Mr.[sic] Hsiung.
>
> Did Dr. Bob say the above...exactly? I thought he said he could see how you could think one particular statement in one post *might* or *could* cause Jews or others to feel put down. Am I mistaken? Did he say an actual (not hypothetically) post or posts are anti-Semitic? Could you show me that?
>
> 10,
You wrote,[...could you show me that?...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
> Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:42:53
In reply to Re: support, posted by SLS on October 21, 2013, at 13:51:41
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:53:43
In reply to Lou's request to Mr Hsiung-dehlybihndyf?, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2013, at 8:10:14
> You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
> B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2013, at 1:09:34
In reply to Re: Lou's request to readers-nhottkryngwolph » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on October 21, 2013, at 21:09:35
> How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?
> It has been a ludicrous affair to argue religion in an attempt to determine the civility of a 5 year old post and the nature of agents that arouse antisemitism.
>
> Dr. Bob. Stop kicking the can down the road by granting one person immunity from PBC and blocks. ... Deliver a judgment and be finished with it.
>
> - ScottI see this as not only about a 5 year old post, but also about Babble's policies and mission.
Lou does challenge this community (as mental health issues might sometimes challenge members of this community, and members of this community might sometimes challenge other communities). How will this community respond to this challenge?
Sometimes it's good to be challenged.
--
> they could or they could not, and if they could not, Dr. Bob and others - maybe all others but you - may read these posts as not anti-Semitic by any far stretch of the imagination.
>
> 10derheartIf the choice is they could or they couldn't, I'd have to go with they could. IMO, the is issue isn't whether they could, but how likely is it that they will.
Bob
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 5:19:31
In reply to Re: support, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2013, at 1:09:34
> > How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
> How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?That's a good analogy. They would need professional help. It might be supportive to suggest this to the sufferer.
> > It has been a ludicrous affair to argue religion in an attempt to determine the civility of a 5 year old post and the nature of agents that arouse antisemitism.
> >
> > Dr. Bob. Stop kicking the can down the road by granting one person immunity from PBC and blocks. ... Deliver a judgment and be finished with it.> I see this as not only about a 5 year old post, but also about Babble's policies and mission.
Then just do it...
It took you quite awhile to take action. Growth is slow sometimes.
> Lou does challenge this community (as mental health issues might sometimes challenge members of this community, and members of this community might sometimes challenge other communities). How will this community respond to this challenge?I can only speak for myself. I would have no problem with your adding comments to the thread Lou Pilder has been complaining about for 5 years. Of course, I might not agree with the content. I guess we will see.
> Sometimes it's good to be challenged.
Sometimes not. However, I would prefer that you deal with these things rather than leave the community to handle it by itself.
I hope my analogy does not arouse hatred of the Chinese - or me for that matter. It could...
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:39:49
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:53:43
> > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
>
> My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
>
> > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
>
> This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. You wrote here that you would post in that thread something that could show readers that the statement in question puts down, at least Jews, by posting that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. This is all because the statement states that [...Christianity is the {only} religion that...].
That statement precludes Jews, Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions that are not Christian based.
Now I don't claim to be a great reader, but this I see. I see that you will do that {if} I accept your rephrases. As I read that, I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action to the post in question by posting in that thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community because it puts down Jews and others.
If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:44:18
In reply to Lou's reply-diph-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:39:49
> > > You have posted that as the statement in the second link here that has line #6 that starts of with,[What is Christianity...], that as the statement stands, it would need to be modified so as to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community as you cited the correct way for the statement to be, ie,[..What is Christianity, a way for (me) or a way for (people of my faith).
> > > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
> >
> > My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
> >
> > > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
> >
> > This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. You wrote here that you would post in that thread something that could show readers that the statement in question puts down, at least Jews, by posting that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. This is all because the statement states that [...Christianity is the {only} religion that...].
> That statement precludes Jews, Islamic people, Hindu people and all other religions that are not Christian based.
> Now I don't claim to be a great reader, but this I see. I see that you will do that {if} I accept your rephrases. As I read that, I am trying to make out what in this world my accepting that has anything to do with you taking affirmative action and doing remedial action to the post in question by posting in that thread that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community because it puts down Jews and others.
> If you are making a condition to me to accept your rephrases in order for you to take affirmative action, I consider that to subject me to different terms and conditions than the other members here which I have told you before: no, you can't do that to me.
> If you are going to leave the statement as it is because I will not be subjected to additional terms and conditions than other members here, then the flames of hatred toward the Jews and others that have the potential to spread from others seeing the statement as supportive by you, could continue to burn.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In regards to the other post, would like for you and others to read the following in that it could be used in any response to my request to you.
Lou Pilder
To see this:
A. Go to Google.
B. Type in:
[Analysis Danial N. Leeson Money Changers in the Temple ]
Usually first. posted on July 6, 2010
Posted by Willful on October 22, 2013, at 10:35:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 21, 2013, at 23:53:43
> > My request here is to know what remedial action, if anything, you are going to take as a result of posting here that the statement is not in accordance with your own stated rules.
>
> My request is, would you accept either (or both) of the rephrases I proposed? If you would, then I'd be happy to proceed with:
>
> > B. Post in the thread where the statement is seen something that shows the readers that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
>
> This is where we got hung up before. If we can move forward here, we could go back to that one next.
>
> Bob
Surely your taking certain actions doesn't depend on whether any other poster to babble "would be happy with" your doing it?Yet your question alone shows ~~visibly~~ as Lou likes to say-- how much you cater to him, and give him special privileges--
This is seemingly because he has make himself so unavoidable and continuous a presence that you've backed further and further into some sort of need simply to satisfy him-- if only he will be quiet and leave you in peace.
Just because one poster simply won't cease and desist assailing you with such an endless and self-reinforcing litany of insistences about certain phrases that are obnoxious to him-- should you literally step into the echo chamber of this distorted universe-- where a few phrases from several years ago are worthy of this relentless energy-? --- phrases that had been laid to rest and would for all intents and purpose not particularly exist-- had Lou not given them a third, fourth and fifth life by citing them over and over again?
Words have a certain life-- and if they don't catch fire with other words and actions, they gradually lose their vitality-- and eventually sputter out-- unless there is someone who blows on the flame, and feeds the fire, so as to keep them alive. Great writers are kept alive by the fire of their readers. Noxious phrases apparently are also subject to being kept alive by those who are compelled to rehearse them, crying out for some revenge.
And honestly--- you give Lou even this privilege of certifying that your unique action in his case is acceptable to him?
But you see-- he won't go away and is not so easy bought off, it appears--- and requires now that you do what you alone consider right-- without it in the least stifling his eternal protest that you have not done enough.
You had better be cautious about the can of worms you may be opening here.
Willful
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:47:36
In reply to Lou's reply--mnychey-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2013, at 7:44:18
By all means, let us here produce a treatise regarding the portrayal of Jews as being moneychangers.
Here's another project for you:
* Jean Jacques Rousseau
I'll see if I can think of any more.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:56:22
In reply to Projects » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 11:47:36
Was Jean Jacques-Rousseau anti-semitic or pro-semitic?
- Scott-------------------------------------------
"On the whole, Montesquieu favored the Jews and empathized with their sufferings (Judaism is a mother who has given birth to two daughters who have struck her a thousand blows... If you do not want to be Christian, at least be human) he also warned that wherever there is money there are Jews. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a noteworthy exception to the rule and adopted a stand consistently favorable to the Jews."
-------------------------------------------
Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 14:01:45
In reply to Re: support » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 5:19:31
> > > How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
>
> > How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?
>
> That's a good analogy. They would need professional help. It might be supportive to suggest this to the sufferer.
maybe. but maybe not. i think that maybe the idea is that it is possible to support a person without condoning their actions. i'm remembering back to ages ago when people wanted deneb blocked for some of her posts about self harm / suicidal ideation. i remember people thinking then that she was getting special privileges for not (often) being blocked for those kinds of posts. not everyone was supportive for her, that is true. but some people found it in them to be supportive to her sometimes. and it seemed to help her. and help the people who were able to support her.i don't see how this situation is terribly different.
except that i don't really understand lou much of the time so in this case i do what a lot of people seemed to do in the last case... i just stay out of it and don't even read many of the posts.
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 14:45:11
In reply to Re: support » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 14:01:45
> > > > How would you support a person who is intractable in their behavior of "crying wolf" ... ?
> >
> > > How would you support someone who was intractable in avoiding social situations, or in cutting themselves?
> >
> > That's a good analogy. They would need professional help. It might be supportive to suggest this to the sufferer.
>
>
> maybe. but maybe not. i think that maybe the idea is that it is possible to support a person without condoning their actions.I don't understand. To refuse to condone the actions of another, what is there left to do?
> i'm remembering back to ages ago when people wanted deneb blocked for some of her posts about self harm / suicidal ideation.
What was the nature of the support she received.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2013, at 16:49:41
In reply to Re: support » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on October 22, 2013, at 14:45:11
I guess I'm thinking back to how people have supported me even when I was engaged in behaviour they didn't condone (e.g., self harm, angry outbursts, near catatonia). Hell, even other things... How can you support someone when you don't like the clothes they choose to wear or their haircut or the way they vote or... Any difference, really... I guess you focus on similarity as best you can. What it is that you can empathize with.
E.g., I think Bob has introduced the notion that vigilance can sometimes arise from trauma. Can you empathise with that? I know I am vigilant because of trauma. I know that I sometimes jump to conclusions about others or see the world through oddly tinted glasses because of my past history. To think that something like that is going on for Lou helps me empathize with his behaviour on one level. Even though I might find it annoying as hell on another level. I'm sure people find my hypervigilance annoying as hell, too. My therapist said the diagnostic assessment was taking so long because I was quickly irritable and spent much of the time complaining about how nobody listens to me. I think... She might well be right. I'm not entirely sure I'm ready to change my behaviour just yet. Maybe if she did a little more of the rephrasing what she heard me say that might help...
I.. I'm not sure I can help Lou much more than she can help me. Mostly... I think there is a similar incomprehension... I don't quite see how to connect.
> What was the nature of the support she received.
Sometimes people could support her by saying that they cared about her and hopes she would feel better soon. Sometimes people could support her by giving her concrete examples of things to try (go for a walk or pet hammie or something). Sometimes people could support her by saying that they understood how she felt. Sometimes people could support her by encouraging her to hang in there and reminding her that the feeling had always passed before and likely would again.
I guess you would need to ask her what kinds of things were helpful. And when they were helpful...
I mean... Think about being a psychologist yourself. You have a client who is engaged in something that you personally don't condone. Drug abuse. Or self harm. Or something... That you personally don't condone. Does that mean that you can't support them or help them? I think you can separate the person from the behaviour and find aspects to empathise with / work with.
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.