![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 280 to 304 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2013, at 12:30:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> > > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> > 10,
> > You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
> > I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
> > A. I re write the question?
> > B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
> > C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
> > D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
> > E. something else
> > Lou
>
> 10derheart has no mandate to respond to any of Lou Pilder's questions. Simple.
>
> I would like to see Lou Pilder learn to be more sensitive to feelings others. I thought the observation made by 10derheart regarding his posts to her are accurate. Mr Pilder's subject lines are not terribly cryptic, and can be extrememly uncivil, especially when his posts allude to the behavior or character of others. In my estimation, such posts mutilate civility and provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I wonder if Mr. Pilder ever observes that he ask the same questions over and over again. To me, the majority of them seem rhetorical and act as statements to further an agenda.
>
> Lou Pilder, I will here ask my question of you a second time:
>
> > > I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate
>
> Do you hate 10derheart? YES or NO
>
> I love her. She is quite extraordinary.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote that the former deputy here in question has no mandate to respond to any of my questions.
I tend to lean to that there is an implied duty for Mr. Hsiung and his deputy now and his former deputies to respond to any questions from others here that have to do with what could be good for this community as a whole because that is part of the TOS here. Others could disagree with me, but is not the health of others here what takes precedence? And if so, could not answers to the questions to them facilitate better health to some readers?
The issues at hand here are the posts that Mr. Hsiung agrees with me are anti-Semitic posts because they put down Jews. In some cases, they put down Islamic people and others also. This is all part of the TOS here in relation to Mr. Hsiung's section on what is or is not civil and how he enforces that. Mr. Hsiung has posted that he is in the realm of the thinking that one match could cause a forest fire so he does not wait to sanction that so that the fire will not spread. That is an analogy that even small statements of unsupportiveness, like a match, could cause a huge fire of hate like a match igniting other combustibles and the small insult (if it is small, but could be large in other people's minds) posted toward Jews and others here being allowed to stand could stoke the furnace of hate which psychologists have written extensively about as to how hate in a community allowed to burn in the minds of the members could effect their health and the hate could be acted out both toward others and themselves! Mr Hsiung has posted here that he does not disagree with me in a lot about that, so the aspect of allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand could be seen by some as an unsound mental-health practice.
I am trying to offset those in authority here that will not or have not sanctioned statements that could put down Jews and others. Two in discussion now put down Jews and others such as
A.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...], and,
B. [...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...].
Both of those IMHHHO could cause great emotional/psychological harm to some readers because they put down Judaism, Islam and other religions that are not Christian religions. I think that it could go a long way in preventing deaths, suicides to those that are not Christian from being bullied or discriminated upon if they were addressed according to the TOS here, for I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that IMHHHHHO could save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions and show how one could have a pathway back to God from a Jewish perspective that is prohibited for me to post here by Mr. Hsiung.
Mr Hsiung agrees with me that genocide, slavery, infanticide and discrimination are abuses of power when a leader of a community commits such or fosters such. I think that it could go a long way to make this community better as a whole if my questions to Mr. Hsiung and the former deputy are answered here. My question, is what could be a rational reason for anyone to want otherwise?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:36:00
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-alhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2013, at 9:27:51
> The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting
That's true, there's the theoretical possibility that a subset of readers could get that idea. I'm willing to accept that risk.
I do consider some statements in some settings to be minor violations.
I remain open to negotiating a compromise. Let me know if you'd like to give that a try.
> A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
False. One match might -- but might not -- start a forest fire.
> B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
Did I post that? If so, could you show me where?
> C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here
False. I might allow some statements that I don't see as anti-Semitic, but others do.
> D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ
False.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:41:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> such posts ... provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
I agree, they could. So I see him as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change. One match doesn't have to start a forest fire.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 27, 2013, at 20:43:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:36:00
> > The thinking that IMHO a subset of readers here could get is that you are wanting antisemitism to be considered to be a minor violation here so that you do not have to sanction the antisemitism, as you state that police do not tend to ticket people for "minor" violations. I do not consider statements that could put down Jews to be minor in any setting
>
> That's true, there's the theoretical possibility that a subset of readers could get that idea. I'm willing to accept that risk.
>
> I do consider some statements in some settings to be minor violations.
>
> I remain open to negotiating a compromise. Let me know if you'd like to give that a try.
>
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
>
> False. One match might -- but might not -- start a forest fire.
>
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
>
> Did I post that? If so, could you show me where?
>
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here
>
> False. I might allow some statements that I don't see as anti-Semitic, but others do.
>
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ
>
> False.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You asked as to where there is that you posted that you did not have a way to determine if someone read something and they felt put down when they read it.
This comes from the following post where in "C", this is brought out and you posted your answer to that as [...of course not...].
Lou PIlder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 8:11:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-howyagonnagetdemanzrs?, posted by SLS on November 19, 2013, at 7:45:21
> > > As long as you include words like complicity and co-conspirator in your subject lines directed to me, and refer to inciting people to violence, causing death, anti-Semitism and beheadings in your posts relating to me and other (present or former) deputies, there is not a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HADES I will respond to your "questions."
>
> > 10,
> > You wrote,[...as long as you...I will not respond to your "questions"..].
> > I am unsure then as to if you will respond to my questions if:
> > A. I re write the question?
> > B. Someone else asks you the same questions in my behalf?
> > C. Another former deputy here posts answers to the same questions?
> > D. Mr. Hsiung posts answers t the same questions?
> > E. something else
> > Lou
>
> 10derheart has no mandate to respond to any of Lou Pilder's questions. Simple.
>
> I would like to see Lou Pilder learn to be more sensitive to feelings others. I thought the observation made by 10derheart regarding his posts to her are accurate. Mr Pilder's subject lines are not terribly cryptic, and can be extrememly uncivil, especially when his posts allude to the behavior or character of others. In my estimation, such posts mutilate civility and provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I wonder if Mr. Pilder ever observes that he ask the same questions over and over again. To me, the majority of them seem rhetorical and act as statements to further an agenda.
>
> Lou Pilder, I will here ask my question of you a second time:
>
> > > I say to you, that I have never seen good come from hate
>
> Do you hate 10derheart? YES or NO
>
> I love her. She is quite extraordinary.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Friends,
The issue here now is concerning statements that could lead a Jew, or Islamic person or others that are in an organized religion that has an agenda not centered in Christ to feel put down when they read those statements in question. And now Mr Hsiung brings up as to what is a "minor" put down or a major put down.
Those statements that could lead people of other faiths to feel put down have been in the past sanctioned by the deputies or Mr. Hsiung.
The question to me here by Scott is if I hate a former deputy.
My question here is could not the deputies not using their power to sanction anti-Semitic statements cause outrage to Jews and other people of other faiths that also could feel put down when they read a statement that is allowed to stand that could lead those in question to feel put down? The feelings that Jews could have by seeing anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand by all of the deputies can cause a Jew to speculate as to why all of those deputies have not responded to the notifications that the deputies state to use that feature to report anti-Semitic statements. As to if that could cause me to hate them, I guess it could cause outrage and that could lead to hatred toward them for some to seek vengeance against them. But the God that I give service and worship to, which is the same as the Jews do, is a Sun and a Shield. And that God has a promise to those that give service and worship to Him, which is that He says that vengeance is His and not for those to seek such, for He will exact vengeance Himself. And hate is something that I can be shielded from penetrating me so that hatred does not destroy me. I hope that others reading here that are Jews or Islamic or the others that have their faith put down here also are shielded by their faith from the spears of hate that can be seen as coming at them.
The two statements in question that are those that could put down Jews and Islamic persons and the others in question are something like:
[...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if their aged is not centered in Christ...] and,
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
Lou
Here is a post of the past practice that defines in part what puts down those of other faiths.
[ faith, 690854 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-alhey » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2013, at 9:27:51
> > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > >
> > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> >
> > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> an,
> 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
Lou Pilder
To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
[ admin, 678224 ]
see verse 25
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 11:35:04
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > >
> > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > >
> > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > an,
> > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> Lou Pilder
> To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> [ admin, 678224 ]
> see verse 25
Friends,
Do you know where this comes from? And do you know how it has been used and by whom? It came way before 1933. To see where this comes from, and how there could be a subset of people that could think in anti-Semitic terms from reading such as the statements in question could be thought to be supportive and civil and good for this community as a whole by the nature that some could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and civil here, go to Google and type in:
[ Strateias.org, Luther ]
It is usually first and there is the word "Extracts" in the subject line.
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on November 28, 2013, at 13:43:28
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstilburng, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 11:35:04
> > > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > > an,
> > > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> > But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> > In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> > Lou Pilder
> > To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> > [ admin, 678224 ]
> > see verse 25
> Friends,
> Do you know where this comes from? And do you know how it has been used and by whom? It came way before 1933. To see where this comes from, and how there could be a subset of people that could think in anti-Semitic terms from reading such as the statements in question could be thought to be supportive and civil and good for this community as a whole by the nature that some could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and civil here, go to Google and type in:
> [ Strateias.org, Luther ]
> It is usually first and there is the word "Extracts" in the subject line.
> Lou
>And here is a post that I think is relevent to this discussion. To see this post go to the search box at the botttom of this page and type in:
[ admin, 680453 ]
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:30:01
In reply to Re: daanzr » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2013, at 23:41:56
> > such posts ... provoke others into saying things in anger that they wouldn't say otherwise.
>
> I agree, they could. So I see him as helping others to learn the serenity of accepting the things they cannot change.Perhaps, but I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. It is an uncivil act proscribed by law. Even someone with Asperger's Syndrome has some understanding of social norms, although they must keep this understanding organized in their minds as a set of logical and objective rules. Calling out someone as being complicit and a conspirator in the promotion of antisemitism is an uncivil act, and I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity, and perhaps even civic harmony
What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:38:03
In reply to Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 8:11:08
Lou Pilder's post was not addressed to me. It was addressed to "friends". Thus, adding my name as the previous poster goes beyond the rule proscribing 3 consecutive posts.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:52:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-vhngeznizmynsezHe, posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:38:03
> Lou Pilder's post was not addressed to me. It was addressed to "friends". Thus, adding my name as the previous poster goes beyond the rule proscribing 3 consecutive posts.
Sorry for my error. The posting rule proscribes posting more than 3 consecutive posts or the starting of more than 3 consecutive threads.
- Scott
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.htmlCan I post as much as I want?
Please share this site with others by not starting more than 3 consecutive threads on the same board or posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread. More than that may discourage less confident posters from joining in. Giving them more of a chance makes it easier for them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
There are exceptions to every rule, and those to this one may include:
Responding to earlier posts one at a time.
Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.
During meltdowns, clarifying posts many times.
Keeping a diary.
-------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:14:58
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down.
>
> This comes from the following post where in "C", this is brought out and you posted your answerThanks. In that case: false, I still don't think I can predict whether a particular person will feel put down by a particular post. If I have a sense of the person, however, I may have a sense of whether they're likely to.
--
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address ... the two statements in question
I'm willing to address those statements. What I'd like is to reach a compromise regarding how to address them.
--
> seeing anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand ... could lead to hatred ... hate is something that I can be shielded from penetrating me so that hatred does not destroy me. I hope that others reading here ... also are shielded ... from the spears of hate
Hate is a problem when it leads to spears.
Here, (1) we don't have to worry about spears, only words, and (2) support could lessen words of hate. Hurt can lead to hate. If posters who feel hurt by words of hate receive support, they may be less likely to respond with their own words of hate (and matches won't lead to forest fires).
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:31:23
In reply to bingcuvrdwthdawgcrpizknotateechablemomnt » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on November 28, 2013, at 21:30:01
> I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
>
> What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
Bob
PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?
Posted by SLS on November 29, 2013, at 17:27:47
In reply to Re: dog crap, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2013, at 12:31:23
> > I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
> >
> > What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
>
> One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
>
> If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively. Is there a privilege for slinging dog crap at each other simply because we may have a shield within us?
Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other. Stop people from accusing others of hate and antisemitism. If you are having trouble judging antisemitism, I suggest you take a few minutes to explore this issue using the search tools offered by the Internet.
You protect Lou Pilder at the expense of all others. Are you protecting a privilege that we now have to falsely accuse others of actively fostering antisemitism? If you feel that Lou Pilder has an unalienable right to to hurt others, I don't understand why others can't do the same reciprocally - just for fun. We, as a community, are not dullards when it comes to exercising a bit of logic when considering your behavior as the moderator of the Psycho-Babble forums. Logic does not equate to Truth.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:31:17
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-psehypgaux, posted by Lou Pilder on November 28, 2013, at 10:54:20
> > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > >
> > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > >
> > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > an,
> > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> Lou Pilder
> To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> [ admin, 678224 ]
> see verse 25Mr. Hsiung,
Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion. It is by another member that shows that this is not a one-person issue concerning statements that could put down Jews, that if remain unsanctioned, could lead a subset of readers to think that statements that could put down Jews are (redacted by respondent).
Lou Pilder
[ admin, 854229 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:34:23
In reply to Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phzdr, posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:31:17
> > > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > > an,
> > > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > > Lou PIlder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> > But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> > In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> > Lou Pilder
> > To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> > [ admin, 678224 ]
> > see verse 25
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion. It is by another member that shows that this is not a one-person issue concerning statements that could put down Jews, that if remain unsanctioned, could lead a subset of readers to think that statements that could put down Jews are (redacted by respondent).
>
> Lou Pilder
> [ admin, 854229 ]correction
[ admin, 845229 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 3:35:51
In reply to correction- Lou's reply-Th Hsiung-Pilder discussio, posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2013, at 20:34:23
> > > > > > > Let us look at this post:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20030530/msgs/251820.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now let's look at this post. Look at "C" and your answer to that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020760.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, could you repeat the question?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > I had asked for you and others to review your terms of service here both by your written TOS in the FAQ and how they are enforced as well as other policies stated outside of the FAQ Tos.
> > > > It is generally accepted that when a body makes rules , the written rules like you have in your FAQ take precedence over any other rule outside of the main body of rules in a TOS declaration that you have here in your FAQ.
> > > > This does bring up some questions that if you could post answers to them here, then I could post my response to you. True of False
> > > > A. You are taking back your thinking that one match could start a forest fire.
> > > > B. You are taking back your thinking that you do not have a way to determine if , let's say, an Islamic person, or Jewish person or other could be likely to feel put down when they read the insult to their faith here as allowed to stand by you that could lead them to feel put down. This could be in
> > > > 1.[...Christianity is the only religion that offers a pathway back to God...]
> > > > an,
> > > > 2.[...One of the top ten worst reasons for an organized religion is if they have their agenda not centered in Christ...]
> > > > Those two can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you because you do agree that readers that see a statement that is not sanctioned by you could think that, and you are taking back your thinking on what you agreed with me about in respect to that
> > > > C. You are now going to allow statements that could be anti-Semitic to be posted at will here without any sanction because now you are taking back the definition agree with me here that anti-Semitic statement are those that put down Jews.
> > > > D. You are now going to re right your TOS in the FAQ to let readers now know that statements like the ones that put down Jews and Islamic people and others that are standing here will be allowed to be posted along with any other statement that is analogous to those.
> > > > E. other question to follow if you post answers to the above questions.
> > > > Lou PIlder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You asked for a compromise. I will not stop trying to have you address, as other posts of the same nature are addressed here by you, the two statements in question, and others that put down Jews and that could lead a Jew and Islamic person and others to feel put down when they read it to be allowed to be seen as supportive and civil here by you and your previous deputies because they are unsanctioned and you agree that there could be a subset of readers that could think that by you not sanctioning a statement, that it is supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole. One match could start a forest fire and those statements have historical implications that you have posted to me here prohibitions so that I can not post here my response to you for what is happening here to show the historical parallels where 1 1/2 million of Jewish children were murdered in a period of time where the anti-Semitic statements here were state-sponsored.
> > > But be it as it may be that the statements in question are still under consideration, we could go on to the next one here.
> > > In this statement that has historical implications and parallels to inciting hatred toward the Jews, others that wanted to blame the Jews and use them for scapegoats and to use Jews to justify their own behavior as being caused by the Jews, (redacted by respondent) and I want you to address this now. If not, others could IMHHO use me and other Jews as a scapegoat for their own posts by saying that what I posted caused them to post what they did and think that because it is unsanctioned, it is state-sponsored here.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > To see this post, go to the bottom of this page in the search box and type in:
> > > [ admin, 678224 ]
> > > see verse 25
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion. It is by another member that shows that this is not a one-person issue concerning statements that could put down Jews, that if remain unsanctioned, could lead a subset of readers to think that statements that could put down Jews are (redacted by respondent).
> >
> > Lou Pilder
> > [ admin, 854229 ]
>
> correction
> [ admin, 845229 ]Mr. Hsiung,
Now you say that you will address the two statements in question. I would like this one also to be addressed.
Lou Pilder
[ admin, 428781 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 9:19:32
In reply to Re: dog crap » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on November 29, 2013, at 17:27:47
> > > I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
> > >
> > > What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
> >
> > One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
> >
> > If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?
>
> Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively. Is there a privilege for slinging dog crap at each other simply because we may have a shield within us?
>
> Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other. Stop people from accusing others of hate and antisemitism. If you are having trouble judging antisemitism, I suggest you take a few minutes to explore this issue using the search tools offered by the Internet.
>
> You protect Lou Pilder at the expense of all others. Are you protecting a privilege that we now have to falsely accuse others of actively fostering antisemitism? If you feel that Lou Pilder has an unalienable right to to hurt others, I don't understand why others can't do the same reciprocally - just for fun. We, as a community, are not dullards when it comes to exercising a bit of logic when considering your behavior as the moderator of the Psycho-Babble forums. Logic does not equate to Truth.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here about {fostering} anti-Semitism. And {fostering} happens if something is {advanced} by, or {encouraged} by, or {promoted} by an administration of a community, or government of a country or even a school or university.
This {fostering} could also be thought by a subset of readers as an {endorsement} of whatever is what is being advanced. And something is advanced by an administration when it is allowed to go forward as acceptable, and in this community as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, as an example, let's say, as if someone was trying to {advance} the theory of evolution. If ,let's say, a school was trying to advance the theory of evolution, the administration of the school could advance the theory by allowing it to be taught, while disallowing the school to teach creationism.
It is the controlling of the content by any administration as to what is allowed and what is not, that has the potential to foster hate and hatred in particular but not limited to the Jews. The historical record shows the tactics used by countries to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I am prevented from posting those tactics here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
Now here, the TOS state not to post {anything}that could lead one to feel put down or accused. And further, to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And further, that if something is not supportive, to not post it, for support takes precedence. And going even further, Mr Hsiung states that what he does in his thinking will be good for this community as whole, and to try and trust him in that. That {trust} that he asks of readers here has historical parallels that I am prevented from posting here that if I was allowed, I think that lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be avoided, and the statements that are here in question that put down Jews would never have had the years of running here for readers to be able to be seen as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole as the TOS here states because it is also stated here that if something is unsanctioned, readers could think that it is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that one match could start a forest fire so he does not wait to put it out.
The statements in question now such as something like the following and there are many more than these:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
and,
[...one of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the agenda of the religion is not centered in Christ..]
stand as having the potential IMO to advance what they purport as long as they remain unsanctioned. What could be advanced is that Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have their faith in an organized religion that has their agenda not centered in Christ do not have a pathway back to God and they are in an organized religion that has the worst reason for being. This can insult Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that are not Christian in their agenda which is the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
Yet today, I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements that put down in particular but not limited to, Jews. My question here, is why anyone would want to have those statements in question here to stand?
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 30, 2013, at 9:51:52
In reply to Lou's response-phostering happens » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 9:19:32
Your strategy for avoiding the 3-post rule is an insult to me. I do not accept your including my name in the subject line of your posts when the content of such posts do not address me personally.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 16:08:09
In reply to Lou's response-phostering happens » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 9:19:32
> > > > I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
> > > >
> > > > What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
> > >
> > > One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
> > >
> > > If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?
> >
> > Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively. Is there a privilege for slinging dog crap at each other simply because we may have a shield within us?
> >
> > Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other. Stop people from accusing others of hate and antisemitism. If you are having trouble judging antisemitism, I suggest you take a few minutes to explore this issue using the search tools offered by the Internet.
> >
> > You protect Lou Pilder at the expense of all others. Are you protecting a privilege that we now have to falsely accuse others of actively fostering antisemitism? If you feel that Lou Pilder has an unalienable right to to hurt others, I don't understand why others can't do the same reciprocally - just for fun. We, as a community, are not dullards when it comes to exercising a bit of logic when considering your behavior as the moderator of the Psycho-Babble forums. Logic does not equate to Truth.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> It is written here about {fostering} anti-Semitism. And {fostering} happens if something is {advanced} by, or {encouraged} by, or {promoted} by an administration of a community, or government of a country or even a school or university.
> This {fostering} could also be thought by a subset of readers as an {endorsement} of whatever is what is being advanced. And something is advanced by an administration when it is allowed to go forward as acceptable, and in this community as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, as an example, let's say, as if someone was trying to {advance} the theory of evolution. If ,let's say, a school was trying to advance the theory of evolution, the administration of the school could advance the theory by allowing it to be taught, while disallowing the school to teach creationism.
> It is the controlling of the content by any administration as to what is allowed and what is not, that has the potential to foster hate and hatred in particular but not limited to the Jews. The historical record shows the tactics used by countries to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I am prevented from posting those tactics here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
> Now here, the TOS state not to post {anything}that could lead one to feel put down or accused. And further, to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And further, that if something is not supportive, to not post it, for support takes precedence. And going even further, Mr Hsiung states that what he does in his thinking will be good for this community as whole, and to try and trust him in that. That {trust} that he asks of readers here has historical parallels that I am prevented from posting here that if I was allowed, I think that lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be avoided, and the statements that are here in question that put down Jews would never have had the years of running here for readers to be able to be seen as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole as the TOS here states because it is also stated here that if something is unsanctioned, readers could think that it is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that one match could start a forest fire so he does not wait to put it out.
> The statements in question now such as something like the following and there are many more than these:
> [...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
> and,
> [...one of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the agenda of the religion is not centered in Christ..]
> stand as having the potential IMO to advance what they purport as long as they remain unsanctioned. What could be advanced is that Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have their faith in an organized religion that has their agenda not centered in Christ do not have a pathway back to God and they are in an organized religion that has the worst reason for being. This can insult Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that are not Christian in their agenda which is the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
> Yet today, I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements that put down in particular but not limited to, Jews. My question here, is why anyone would want to have those statements in question here to stand?
> LouFriends,
The aspect of {fostering} anti-Semitism here can be determined by readers on their own as to understanding how fostering happens in a community. If there is control of the content by the owner and his deputies, and they also assist or encourage others in posting their own comments to other's posts, then a {design} can be seen in the development of thought and there could be direct encouragement by the deputies and owner. This control can be done by having rules that separate what is acceptable or not and sanctioning and even expelling those that post what is not acceptable to the owner and the deputies that do his wishes. This separation could advance hatred toward Judaism itself by the deputies and the owner having a policy that develops one religion as having their agenda being allowed and the Jewish perspective as revealed to me not permitted to be posted as supportive here. So the statements in question that are like:
[...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
and,
[...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if their agenda is not centered in Christ...] is seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, but the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me is seen as uncivil and not supportive and will not be good for this community as a whole because I am prevented by the rules from posting such.
Lou
[ admin, 7968 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 17:11:25
In reply to Lou's response-phostering happens, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 16:08:09
> > > > > I don't see how dog crap being hurled at me is a learning experience that should teach me the serenity in being covered with canine fecal matter. ... I expect that Lou Pilder should be afforded his own teachable moments that shall nurture in him a sense of serenity
> > > > >
> > > > > What are you protecting? Start teaching us. All of us.
> > > >
> > > > One response is that I'm trying to protect Babble by teaching acceptance and serenity.
> > > >
> > > > If someone hurled dog crap at you, but you were shielded from it, could you accept not being able to change them?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > PS: Based on what I just posted, another response is, how does it make you feel to have dog crap hurled at you?
> > >
> > > Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively. Is there a privilege for slinging dog crap at each other simply because we may have a shield within us?
> > >
> > > Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other. Stop people from accusing others of hate and antisemitism. If you are having trouble judging antisemitism, I suggest you take a few minutes to explore this issue using the search tools offered by the Internet.
> > >
> > > You protect Lou Pilder at the expense of all others. Are you protecting a privilege that we now have to falsely accuse others of actively fostering antisemitism? If you feel that Lou Pilder has an unalienable right to to hurt others, I don't understand why others can't do the same reciprocally - just for fun. We, as a community, are not dullards when it comes to exercising a bit of logic when considering your behavior as the moderator of the Psycho-Babble forums. Logic does not equate to Truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here about {fostering} anti-Semitism. And {fostering} happens if something is {advanced} by, or {encouraged} by, or {promoted} by an administration of a community, or government of a country or even a school or university.
> > This {fostering} could also be thought by a subset of readers as an {endorsement} of whatever is what is being advanced. And something is advanced by an administration when it is allowed to go forward as acceptable, and in this community as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, as an example, let's say, as if someone was trying to {advance} the theory of evolution. If ,let's say, a school was trying to advance the theory of evolution, the administration of the school could advance the theory by allowing it to be taught, while disallowing the school to teach creationism.
> > It is the controlling of the content by any administration as to what is allowed and what is not, that has the potential to foster hate and hatred in particular but not limited to the Jews. The historical record shows the tactics used by countries to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I am prevented from posting those tactics here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
> > Now here, the TOS state not to post {anything}that could lead one to feel put down or accused. And further, to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And further, that if something is not supportive, to not post it, for support takes precedence. And going even further, Mr Hsiung states that what he does in his thinking will be good for this community as whole, and to try and trust him in that. That {trust} that he asks of readers here has historical parallels that I am prevented from posting here that if I was allowed, I think that lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be avoided, and the statements that are here in question that put down Jews would never have had the years of running here for readers to be able to be seen as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole as the TOS here states because it is also stated here that if something is unsanctioned, readers could think that it is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that one match could start a forest fire so he does not wait to put it out.
> > The statements in question now such as something like the following and there are many more than these:
> > [...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
> > and,
> > [...one of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the agenda of the religion is not centered in Christ..]
> > stand as having the potential IMO to advance what they purport as long as they remain unsanctioned. What could be advanced is that Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have their faith in an organized religion that has their agenda not centered in Christ do not have a pathway back to God and they are in an organized religion that has the worst reason for being. This can insult Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that are not Christian in their agenda which is the generally accepted meaning of what {put down} means.
> > Yet today, I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements that put down in particular but not limited to, Jews. My question here, is why anyone would want to have those statements in question here to stand?
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> The aspect of {fostering} anti-Semitism here can be determined by readers on their own as to understanding how fostering happens in a community. If there is control of the content by the owner and his deputies, and they also assist or encourage others in posting their own comments to other's posts, then a {design} can be seen in the development of thought and there could be direct encouragement by the deputies and owner. This control can be done by having rules that separate what is acceptable or not and sanctioning and even expelling those that post what is not acceptable to the owner and the deputies that do his wishes. This separation could advance hatred toward Judaism itself by the deputies and the owner having a policy that develops one religion as having their agenda being allowed and the Jewish perspective as revealed to me not permitted to be posted as supportive here. So the statements in question that are like:
> [...Christianity is the only religion that has a pathway back to God...]
> and,
> [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if their agenda is not centered in Christ...] is seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, but the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me is seen as uncivil and not supportive and will not be good for this community as a whole because I am prevented by the rules from posting such.
> Lou
> [ admin, 7968 ]Friends,
The encouragement by Mr. Hsiung that could steer readers into the development of what content is "good" or not, can be controlled by Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies commenting to third-party posts. Here is one that IMHHHHHO could advance hatred toward the Jews and create a hostile environment here for Jews . This is because Mr. Hsiung says that he thinks it is good for there to be the following statement that puts down, in particular but not limited to, Jews. The put downing is by the generally accepted understanding that a put down happens when one faith is said to be deficient in what another faith has. In the following, what has been historically promulgated by the statement here in question that has been used to defame the Jews for centuries is that Christianty has grace and truth brought to it by Jesus and the contrast to Judaism is that there is no grace or truth in it because grace and truth {came by } Jesus and Jews have only the Law. The put down of Judaism is not only allowed to stand as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole, but the information content provider here assists the third-party member and says that he thinks that it is "good". The generally accepted understanding in when one person says that if two things are being contrasted and one party says that one is "good", then the other part could be considered by a subset of people as "bad". This is in part how anti-Semitism can be fostered in a community.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
Posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2013, at 18:31:45
In reply to Lou's response-putting down happens-encourage, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 17:11:25
What if I said I believe in Spirituality? That the universe was created with the Big Bang Theory? The Whipple Theory? Would this change things?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 20:19:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response-putting down happens-encourage » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2013, at 18:31:45
> What if I said I believe in Spirituality? That the universe was created with the Big Bang Theory? The Whipple Theory? Would this change things?
Phillipa,
The issue here is that the rules are to not post what could put down those of other faiths. Saying that you believe something is OK as long as what you believe does not put down those of other faiths.
So if you believe in Spirituality, that is Ok to post here, for you did not contrast your belief with another belief in a way that demeans the other belief or says that your belief is superior in some way to another belief.
In:
[...Christianity is he only religion that has a pathway back to God...], the use of the word {only} precludes all other religions. So, Islam and Judaism and all other non-Christian religions could be thought by a subset of people that read the statement to mean that the non-Christian religions are being put down because they do not have a way back to God in their religion. So, if you are evaluating the statement as to if it is an anti-Semitic statement and you agree with Mr Hsiung that an anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews, then the statement is an anti-Semitic statement. The fact that it is unsanctioned could foster antisemitism because a subset of readers could think that unsanctioned statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole and that readers are to try to trust Mr Hsiung in what he does, and in this case, I guess what he and his deputies do not do.
That could cause a creation or development of information as being acceptable here because Mr. Hsiung and his deputies could control the content and assist in the development of material that they say is what is or is not civil and supportive.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 12:52:33
In reply to Lou's response-phostering happens » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2013, at 9:19:32
> I am still trying to give Mr Hsiung the opportunity to sanction those and other statements
> Here is another post that I would like to include in this discussion...
Before we include more posts, I'd like to try to clarify what I'm open to, to avoid being at cross-purposes.
I'm open to discussing policies, including how they're applied and how they might be improved.
I'm not open to considering sanctions here. Requests for sanctions should be submitted using the "notify administrators" button. (One policy is not to sanction archived posts.)
I'm also open to the following compromise: if (1) we agree that a statement could potentially be seen as putting down Jews and (2) we agree on a restatement that would be more conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, then I'll post that restatement to that thread.
I understand you may not find that acceptable. We may remain a Rock and a Hard Place. I can accept not being able to change you.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2013, at 13:01:50
In reply to Re: dog crap » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on November 29, 2013, at 17:27:47
> Are we speaking of SLS personally, or are we talking about everyone in the community? If I do have a shield, it is mine. Does everyone have their own dog crap shield? They might, but it could take quite a bit of coaching to teach one how to use it effectively.
I was speaking of you. I'm glad you have a shield. I like the idea of coaching others to use theirs effectively. Would you consider doing that?
> Stop people from hurling dog crap at each other.
I'm sure you know that saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. My feeling about this is something like: Stop a man from hurling dog crap and you protect others for a day; teach them to shield themselves and you protect them for a lifetime.
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.