![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 749 to 773 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:23:58
In reply to Lou's request-should revighz-where?, posted by Lou Pilder on January 18, 2015, at 9:15:59
> > > > > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > You wrote he above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting others to think here by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > > True or false:
> > > > > A. In posts where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen that you did not intervene, you left the statement un intervened so that the community will be improved as a whole by not sanctioning the anti-Semitic propaganda.
> > > > > B. If so, you will post here what that improvement will be by you not intervening.
> > > > > C. If I was to intervene where the anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen, Lou, the community as a whole would suffer un improvement and be bad for the community for me to post an intervention.
> > > > > D. I agree, Lou, that by me not posting an intervention where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen here, that a subset of readers could think that I and my deputies of record are validating the anti-Semitic hate.
> > > > > E. In that I say here, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair here, a subset of readers could think that I am denying the Jews equal protection of my rules where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, and a subset of readers could think that it is fair according to me, Lou, to leave anti-Semitic propaganda un intervened while intervening where anti-Christian propaganda is posted here.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsuing,
> > > > I have the following requests. If you could post answers here to the following, then I think that it could go a long way to prevent Jews from being victims of anti-Semitic violence and Islamic people and others that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian as a result of any readers thinking that by seeing those type of statements posted here to be considered to be supportive by you as not being against your rules as standing.
> > > > By you now saying, "I should revise that.", this brings up grave concerns to me.
> > > > True or False:
> > > > The people that read the anti-Semitic propaganda here before you posted that you should revise that your policy was that if did not intervene it was not against your rules:
> > > > A. Could think that antisemitic statements are not against your rules and think that anti-Semitism is supportive by you.
> > > > B. Could think that anti-Semitic statements not intervened by you will be good for your community as a whole
> > > > C. Could act out violence toward Jews as thinking that a psychiatrist is validating hatred toward the Jews as it will be good for his community as a whole so it could also be good for their community as a whole.
> > > > D. People here that are taking mind-altering drugs that can make them easily influenced by what a psychiatrist writes as to what his thinking is, could be easily persuaded to commit violence and even murder of Jews as thinking that if anti-Semitism is considered to be supportive and not against your rules, then Jews could be thought to be inferior by you so they could think that you are the exemplar and {trust} you as you ask them to try to do and that you will appreciate it if they do.
> > > > E. I will post a whole page, Lou, so that the page is seen first to explain that anti-Semitic propaganda seen here as un intervened was considered not against my rules up to my revision, and the revision now means that anti-Semitic propaganda is still against my rules but I will allow some to be seen as supportive because I think that later the community will be improved by me allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen un intervened and could be considered for readers to be validated or ratified by me and my deputies of record.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > Mr. Hsuing,
> > > In regards tat you posted that you should revise that what can be seen un intervened is not against your rules here, this brings up two periods of time. One is the period of time before you posted your revision and the other is after you posted your revision.
> > > In my previous post, I dealt with issues that are grave to me as in the first period of time and before that, my post was as if there was not a revision by you posted here.
> > > But now I want to deal with the period of time after you posted your revision because of the consequences to Jews and others that could happen as I see could be into the future of this site as my vision that like you have a vision of what will be good for your community as a whole.
> > > But before I do that, I would like for you to construct a page that all posters will come to first and then be directed to the forum by clicking that they have read the page. Something like:
> > > An Explanation By Dr. Bob
> > > Readers, be advised that from now on you could see anti-Semitic propaganda posted here without me or any deputy of mine intervening. This could lead to you being misled and/or confused because of you may not even know of the revision since I have not posted it in the FAQ. So I want to work with the community now to make up something to explain this. Please add your comments, if any, here before you go to the forum
> > > Dr Bob
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> >
> > Mr. Hsuing,
> > I apologize for the posts content here as some of it could be incorrect and duplicated. This is all because of the different turns and twists that I am trying to sort out by your statement that says:
> > A. I should revise that. I might consider something that is brought to my attention that is against my rules and allow it to stand.
> > B. I may consider something against my rules and not intervene
> > C. I want readers to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair
> > D. And to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole
> > E. I want to be free to use my judgment
> > These statements by you to me are of grave concern to me because of that readers could not know what this all entails because they may not know some of what you posted elsewhere which could then have multiple subsets of readers here.
> > For instance, there could be a subset of readers that see anti-Semitic propaganda here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. These readers could be those that never saw your revision.
> > Then there could be a subset of readers that saw your revision but do not understand what it could entail. Could it entail that you will now allow some anti-Semitic propaganda or insults to Islam to be seen as supportive because they also saw that you wrote that you do not wait to sanction uncivility because one match could start a forest fire? And another subset could think that statements objected by me still the same are considered by you to benefit the community later by not accepting my offer to you for the opportunity to open those posts in question and type in a repudiation to those statements tat could be interpreted as an insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths? And many other subsets of here. This causes me to do over all of this so that the picture could be focused more clearly.
> > In order for me to do this, I would like any help from readers here as to what their understanding could be concerning that Mr. Hsiung has posted, "I should revise that."
> > A. Could it mean to you that antisemitic propaganda, could be thought to be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking, as being seen as supportive where there is not is tagline to please be civil because Mr. Hsiung says that being supportive takes precedence and that posters are to be civil at all times?
> > Lou
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> In trying to sort this out and at the same time to have clarification from you as to what you are wanting readers to think from that you wrote, "I should revise that", I now see some horrific outcomes that could play out from readers here not understanding what you are wanting to mean here. First, I would like to know where this revision is located, if it has been posted here by you. This is because that you said that you {*should* revise that}, a subset of readers could think that there is urgency for you to post something, somewhere here, with your revision so that readers could know of it besides what you have posted in your dialog just with me here, for not all readers could know of our dialog here.
> In that you say that, "I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene" , if there was a revision posted by you in your FAQ, readers could IMHO have a better understanding of what you are wanting readers to think here by what you wrote. I would like to see you place in your TOS/FAQ this revision that you say that you *should* make. For as long as readers can not be informed as to what you are wanting readers to think by what you wrote, there could be many subsets of readers that could think in terms that your site could be a site to promulgate hate speech that is defined in different countries where your site could be accessed via the internet broadcast condoning anti-Semitic propaganda as being what will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking. This could put Jews in fear of being killed by anti-Semitic hate groups accessing what you wrote to think, IMHO, that they have a psychiatrist condoning anti-Semitic propaganda as that it will be good for his community as a whole for it to not be intervened by you.
> I am asking that you immediately post where all readers could know of it, your *revision* in order that any fostering of hate that could be seen in your revision could be known so that Jews and others could counteract you and alert the police in other countries of what you are trying to promulgate here against the Jews, if your *revision* says anything that could be construed by a reasonable reader to mean that you will allow anti-Semitic propaganda to stand un repudiated because in your thinking that hate will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking. That is what a subset of readers now, as to your grammatical structure could be thought, to mean.
> I would like the Homeland Security department to see this revision of yours now and make a determination as to if it is having the potential of sponsoring terror groups fodder to kill Jews. For as of now, your posting here could have the potential that posters could at least have the chance of posting anti-Semitic hate and it be allowed by you to stand un repudiated because in your thinking it will be good for your community as a whole. I do not think that any anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen as good for your community as a whole in your thinking meets the goals of the forum as to be for support and be fair and be according to the Golden Rule according to your TOS here. Yet today, what you wrote in question here could give rise IMHO to the thinking to some readers that you have in mind to allow some anti-Semitic hate to be posted here without you intervening.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsuing,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. You have posted that your revision would allow readers to not know if a statement is considered by you to be supportive or not. You even state that you could leave an uncivil statement that is against your rules to be seen as supportive because in your thinking leaving the statement un intervened would be good for this community as a whole. This could mean that you could leave hate speech in the form of anti-Semitic propaganda un intervened as in your thinking it would be good for this community as a whole.
I feel disturbed by that. Research has shown the harm done to people that are targets of hate speech and I think that there is no place in a mental-health internet community for hate speech to be seen as supportive, or to even guess if it is. This research shows that the recipients of hate speech causes minorities to be categorized with negative attributes and cause direct physical and emotional changes and generate feelings of inferiority that could affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone. Hate speech has been used by those that abuse their power to subordinate minorities.
Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
The statement insults Judaism by having in it a grammatical structure that could lead a subset of readers to think that the statement portrays Jews as inferior people as being unsaved and that if they convert to Christianity, they will be saved, but as being a Jew without doing the conversion, they are not saved. The statement could also imply that Islamic people belong to an inferior faith, for the grammatical structure of the statement to me as a Jew could also lead Islamic people to think that the statement insults their faith as being inferior to Christianity. And the statement could also be analogous to the other statement that I am objecting to here in,{No non-Christian will...}, which is analogous to ,{only Christians will...} which insults all faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
Hate speech in other countries has its core definition to be speech that disparages the human dignity of another religion that as the potential to incite hatred as in that I am objecting to the link to Matt 27 being un intervened by you and your deputies of record for the contents of that chapter can incite hatred and violence and hostility toward Jews as the historical record shows as Jews being used as scapegoats as being justified by the verses that I am objecting to, even the commission of mass-murder.
Here is the link of the statement to me to convert to Christianity to be saved, which means that a subset of readers could think that the statement insults Judaism as allows for me to be deemed here as an inferior person which dehumanizes and stigmatizes me here as a Jew. By your own definition, an anti-Semitic statement is one that could lead a Jew to feel put down or a statement that puts down another's religion
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:23:59
In reply to Lou's response to Mr. Hsiung-heytspeech, posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2015, at 9:04:31
> > > > > > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > You wrote he above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting others to think here by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > > > True or false:
> > > > > > A. In posts where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen that you did not intervene, you left the statement un intervened so that the community will be improved as a whole by not sanctioning the anti-Semitic propaganda.
> > > > > > B. If so, you will post here what that improvement will be by you not intervening.
> > > > > > C. If I was to intervene where the anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen, Lou, the community as a whole would suffer un improvement and be bad for the community for me to post an intervention.
> > > > > > D. I agree, Lou, that by me not posting an intervention where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen here, that a subset of readers could think that I and my deputies of record are validating the anti-Semitic hate.
> > > > > > E. In that I say here, Lou, that I am doing my best to be fair here, a subset of readers could think that I am denying the Jews equal protection of my rules where anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, and a subset of readers could think that it is fair according to me, Lou, to leave anti-Semitic propaganda un intervened while intervening where anti-Christian propaganda is posted here.
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsuing,
> > > > > I have the following requests. If you could post answers here to the following, then I think that it could go a long way to prevent Jews from being victims of anti-Semitic violence and Islamic people and others that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian as a result of any readers thinking that by seeing those type of statements posted here to be considered to be supportive by you as not being against your rules as standing.
> > > > > By you now saying, "I should revise that.", this brings up grave concerns to me.
> > > > > True or False:
> > > > > The people that read the anti-Semitic propaganda here before you posted that you should revise that your policy was that if did not intervene it was not against your rules:
> > > > > A. Could think that antisemitic statements are not against your rules and think that anti-Semitism is supportive by you.
> > > > > B. Could think that anti-Semitic statements not intervened by you will be good for your community as a whole
> > > > > C. Could act out violence toward Jews as thinking that a psychiatrist is validating hatred toward the Jews as it will be good for his community as a whole so it could also be good for their community as a whole.
> > > > > D. People here that are taking mind-altering drugs that can make them easily influenced by what a psychiatrist writes as to what his thinking is, could be easily persuaded to commit violence and even murder of Jews as thinking that if anti-Semitism is considered to be supportive and not against your rules, then Jews could be thought to be inferior by you so they could think that you are the exemplar and {trust} you as you ask them to try to do and that you will appreciate it if they do.
> > > > > E. I will post a whole page, Lou, so that the page is seen first to explain that anti-Semitic propaganda seen here as un intervened was considered not against my rules up to my revision, and the revision now means that anti-Semitic propaganda is still against my rules but I will allow some to be seen as supportive because I think that later the community will be improved by me allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen un intervened and could be considered for readers to be validated or ratified by me and my deputies of record.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsuing,
> > > > In regards tat you posted that you should revise that what can be seen un intervened is not against your rules here, this brings up two periods of time. One is the period of time before you posted your revision and the other is after you posted your revision.
> > > > In my previous post, I dealt with issues that are grave to me as in the first period of time and before that, my post was as if there was not a revision by you posted here.
> > > > But now I want to deal with the period of time after you posted your revision because of the consequences to Jews and others that could happen as I see could be into the future of this site as my vision that like you have a vision of what will be good for your community as a whole.
> > > > But before I do that, I would like for you to construct a page that all posters will come to first and then be directed to the forum by clicking that they have read the page. Something like:
> > > > An Explanation By Dr. Bob
> > > > Readers, be advised that from now on you could see anti-Semitic propaganda posted here without me or any deputy of mine intervening. This could lead to you being misled and/or confused because of you may not even know of the revision since I have not posted it in the FAQ. So I want to work with the community now to make up something to explain this. Please add your comments, if any, here before you go to the forum
> > > > Dr Bob
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsuing,
> > > I apologize for the posts content here as some of it could be incorrect and duplicated. This is all because of the different turns and twists that I am trying to sort out by your statement that says:
> > > A. I should revise that. I might consider something that is brought to my attention that is against my rules and allow it to stand.
> > > B. I may consider something against my rules and not intervene
> > > C. I want readers to trust me in that I am doing my best to be fair
> > > D. And to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole
> > > E. I want to be free to use my judgment
> > > These statements by you to me are of grave concern to me because of that readers could not know what this all entails because they may not know some of what you posted elsewhere which could then have multiple subsets of readers here.
> > > For instance, there could be a subset of readers that see anti-Semitic propaganda here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. These readers could be those that never saw your revision.
> > > Then there could be a subset of readers that saw your revision but do not understand what it could entail. Could it entail that you will now allow some anti-Semitic propaganda or insults to Islam to be seen as supportive because they also saw that you wrote that you do not wait to sanction uncivility because one match could start a forest fire? And another subset could think that statements objected by me still the same are considered by you to benefit the community later by not accepting my offer to you for the opportunity to open those posts in question and type in a repudiation to those statements tat could be interpreted as an insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths? And many other subsets of here. This causes me to do over all of this so that the picture could be focused more clearly.
> > > In order for me to do this, I would like any help from readers here as to what their understanding could be concerning that Mr. Hsiung has posted, "I should revise that."
> > > A. Could it mean to you that antisemitic propaganda, could be thought to be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking, as being seen as supportive where there is not is tagline to please be civil because Mr. Hsiung says that being supportive takes precedence and that posters are to be civil at all times?
> > > Lou
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In trying to sort this out and at the same time to have clarification from you as to what you are wanting readers to think from that you wrote, "I should revise that", I now see some horrific outcomes that could play out from readers here not understanding what you are wanting to mean here. First, I would like to know where this revision is located, if it has been posted here by you. This is because that you said that you {*should* revise that}, a subset of readers could think that there is urgency for you to post something, somewhere here, with your revision so that readers could know of it besides what you have posted in your dialog just with me here, for not all readers could know of our dialog here.
> > In that you say that, "I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene" , if there was a revision posted by you in your FAQ, readers could IMHO have a better understanding of what you are wanting readers to think here by what you wrote. I would like to see you place in your TOS/FAQ this revision that you say that you *should* make. For as long as readers can not be informed as to what you are wanting readers to think by what you wrote, there could be many subsets of readers that could think in terms that your site could be a site to promulgate hate speech that is defined in different countries where your site could be accessed via the internet broadcast condoning anti-Semitic propaganda as being what will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking. This could put Jews in fear of being killed by anti-Semitic hate groups accessing what you wrote to think, IMHO, that they have a psychiatrist condoning anti-Semitic propaganda as that it will be good for his community as a whole for it to not be intervened by you.
> > I am asking that you immediately post where all readers could know of it, your *revision* in order that any fostering of hate that could be seen in your revision could be known so that Jews and others could counteract you and alert the police in other countries of what you are trying to promulgate here against the Jews, if your *revision* says anything that could be construed by a reasonable reader to mean that you will allow anti-Semitic propaganda to stand un repudiated because in your thinking that hate will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking. That is what a subset of readers now, as to your grammatical structure could be thought, to mean.
> > I would like the Homeland Security department to see this revision of yours now and make a determination as to if it is having the potential of sponsoring terror groups fodder to kill Jews. For as of now, your posting here could have the potential that posters could at least have the chance of posting anti-Semitic hate and it be allowed by you to stand un repudiated because in your thinking it will be good for your community as a whole. I do not think that any anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen as good for your community as a whole in your thinking meets the goals of the forum as to be for support and be fair and be according to the Golden Rule according to your TOS here. Yet today, what you wrote in question here could give rise IMHO to the thinking to some readers that you have in mind to allow some anti-Semitic hate to be posted here without you intervening.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsuing,
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. You have posted that your revision would allow readers to not know if a statement is considered by you to be supportive or not. You even state that you could leave an uncivil statement that is against your rules to be seen as supportive because in your thinking leaving the statement un intervened would be good for this community as a whole. This could mean that you could leave hate speech in the form of anti-Semitic propaganda un intervened as in your thinking it would be good for this community as a whole.
> I feel disturbed by that. Research has shown the harm done to people that are targets of hate speech and I think that there is no place in a mental-health internet community for hate speech to be seen as supportive, or to even guess if it is. This research shows that the recipients of hate speech causes minorities to be categorized with negative attributes and cause direct physical and emotional changes and generate feelings of inferiority that could affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone. Hate speech has been used by those that abuse their power to subordinate minorities.
> Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
> Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> The statement insults Judaism by having in it a grammatical structure that could lead a subset of readers to think that the statement portrays Jews as inferior people as being unsaved and that if they convert to Christianity, they will be saved, but as being a Jew without doing the conversion, they are not saved. The statement could also imply that Islamic people belong to an inferior faith, for the grammatical structure of the statement to me as a Jew could also lead Islamic people to think that the statement insults their faith as being inferior to Christianity. And the statement could also be analogous to the other statement that I am objecting to here in,{No non-Christian will...}, which is analogous to ,{only Christians will...} which insults all faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> Hate speech in other countries has its core definition to be speech that disparages the human dignity of another religion that as the potential to incite hatred as in that I am objecting to the link to Matt 27 being un intervened by you and your deputies of record for the contents of that chapter can incite hatred and violence and hostility toward Jews as the historical record shows as Jews being used as scapegoats as being justified by the verses that I am objecting to, even the commission of mass-murder.
> Here is the link of the statement to me to convert to Christianity to be saved, which means that a subset of readers could think that the statement insults Judaism as allows for me to be deemed here as an inferior person which dehumanizes and stigmatizes me here as a Jew. By your own definition, an anti-Semitic statement is one that could lead a Jew to feel put down or a statement that puts down another's religion
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
>
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote here that what you wrote is something that you *should* revise because what is seen you said if it was not addressed by you then it was considered to be not against your rules. You now want to revise that because you could leave something un addressed that is against your rules because in your thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to leave, let's say, anti-Semitic propaganda un addressed by you. But I find a twisted road here that I can not follow, I do not know which way to turn here because I do not know what you mean by {I should revise that} because you could mean different things by that such as if you are saying that you were wrong to begin with or that you are starting a new TOS and I think that others could also be misled by what you have now posted because if you did not mean what you wrote and you *should* revise it, how could readers know if you do not mean what you wrote about other issues involving what could cause them to trust you and what you want them to trust you on will not be good for the community as a whole. Would not a great body of your TOS here now also have to be revised in order to accommodate your revision that you say you *should* do? Would you now have to revise that you have stated that being supportive takes precedence and that posters are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire by revising your FAQ in particular your enforcement clause? And that posters are not to post {anything} that could lead a reader to feel put down or accused? Or not to post what could be insensitive?
And you want readers to trust you? could not a good and just revision be worded something like:
[...Readers, do not trust what I write here to be what I mean, for I can revise at my will whenever I want to any part of my TOS here. This may mean that some readers could feel deceived...]
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:24:00
In reply to Lou's response to Dina's post-coechheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2015, at 6:02:50
> > > > It's my understanding that nothing on this site is "endorsed" by Dr. Bob, and that he takes responsibility only for his own words. If he finds something doesn't comply with site guidelines he takes admin action. But not taking admin action doesn't imply endorsement or approval. Admin action only says that something is in noncompliance. Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken.
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > The poster wrote,[...Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken...].
> > > Now that perception indicated as being what it is by Dinah here, could be the perception of other readers also.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > Now Mr. Hsiung writes here that he should revise that he agrees with Dinah that statements left to stand are not against his rules. What his statement could lead readers to think is:
> > A. After a revision, readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
> > B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> If you are concerned here, I am requesting that you read trough the following posts and see how anti-Semitic hatred could be developed here by Mr. Hsiung by him not enforcing his own rules. He could change his rules, he could revise his rules, which could feed the ideology behind what is posted about the Jews here as being supportive and will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking.
> Here is one such post in a series of posts where the poster is coached by Mr. Hsiung to follow a script that would allow hatred toward the Jews to be posted here with impunity.
> Lou
> [ admin, 428781 ]Friends,
Mr. Hsuing says that he should revise his statement that he agrees that leaving a post up sows that no rule of is has been broken. Tis , unless clarified by Mr. Hsiung, IMHO could cause irreparable harm to a subset of people. Tis is because of the different ways readers could understand what he is intending to mean by that he should revise his policy that readers could be led to believe as by taking Mr. Hsiung at his word. But it is much more than that. For anti-Semitic propaganda is {left up} as Dinah uses which could mean un repudiated by Mr. Hsuing, without his tagline to please be civil where the anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be good for this community as a whole sometime in the future. This could IMHHO create a community of acceptance for hatred toward the Jews, socially acceptable, creating a foundation for real-world hate and violence toward Jews. Let me show you how this is done.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:24:01
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-accphey, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2015, at 14:50:10
> > > > > It's my understanding that nothing on this site is "endorsed" by Dr. Bob, and that he takes responsibility only for his own words. If he finds something doesn't comply with site guidelines he takes admin action. But not taking admin action doesn't imply endorsement or approval. Admin action only says that something is in noncompliance. Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken.
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > The poster wrote,[...Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken...].
> > > > Now that perception indicated as being what it is by Dinah here, could be the perception of other readers also.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Now Mr. Hsiung writes here that he should revise that he agrees with Dinah that statements left to stand are not against his rules. What his statement could lead readers to think is:
> > > A. After a revision, readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
> > > B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are concerned here, I am requesting that you read trough the following posts and see how anti-Semitic hatred could be developed here by Mr. Hsiung by him not enforcing his own rules. He could change his rules, he could revise his rules, which could feed the ideology behind what is posted about the Jews here as being supportive and will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking.
> > Here is one such post in a series of posts where the poster is coached by Mr. Hsiung to follow a script that would allow hatred toward the Jews to be posted here with impunity.
> > Lou
> > [ admin, 428781 ]
>
> Friends,
> Mr. Hsuing says that he should revise his statement that he agrees that leaving a post up sows that no rule of is has been broken. Tis , unless clarified by Mr. Hsiung, IMHO could cause irreparable harm to a subset of people. Tis is because of the different ways readers could understand what he is intending to mean by that he should revise his policy that readers could be led to believe as by taking Mr. Hsiung at his word. But it is much more than that. For anti-Semitic propaganda is {left up} as Dinah uses which could mean un repudiated by Mr. Hsuing, without his tagline to please be civil where the anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be good for this community as a whole sometime in the future. This could IMHHO create a community of acceptance for hatred toward the Jews, socially acceptable, creating a foundation for real-world hate and violence toward Jews. Let me show you how this is done.
> LouFriends,
The tactics used to arouse hatred toward the Jews is not new. It is an old script, followed today to create a climate of hatred , suspicion and indifference by boycotting that can recruit young people using the power of propaganda to spread lies about the Jews and making Jews to be thought as outcasts to be shunned.
Let us look at this video of this old tactic.
Lou
[ youtube, kCTk2N_iUF0 ] the last character is a zero, not te letter "O"
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
In reply to Lou's response to Mr. Hsiung-heytspeech, posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:23:58
> A. readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
True.
> B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
It could, but I consider those outcomes to be unlikely.
--
> Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
>
> Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.htmlWe discussed this before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 8:36:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
> > A. readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
>
> True.
>
> > B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
>
> It could, but I consider those outcomes to be unlikely.
>
> --
>
> > Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
> >
> > Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
>
> We discussed this before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
>
> I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...But I don't consider it supportive...].
But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire. And if those readers also saw that you posted that you should revise what you said, there is no change in your TOS/FAQ for readers to know what the revision is. And anyway, the post could have been posted before you posted that you should revise what you have posted here about how you enforce your rules.
I am asking for you to open that post and type right down in the post something like:
Owner's note:
Be advised that I do not consider the statement about Jews that readers could think that Jews need to convert to Christianity to be saved to be supportive here. And my remark that Christians convert to Judaism a lot as much as Jews converting to Christianity is not factual and not relevant as to if the statement in question is supportive or not, which you may consider to be that I have used the tactic of evasion here. I am sorry if you could feel misled here and think that I am not neutral in respect to allowing statements that are unsupportive concerning Judaism to be seen as supportive here or that I am denying Lou, the Jewish member here, equal protection of my rules..
If you think that I am doing this to create and develop anti-Semitic hate here, or to inflict emotional distress upon Jews, you could write to The American Psychiatric Association at {give contact information here}.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 0:55:41
In reply to Re: doesn't even mean it's not against the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> >
> > Right:
> >
> > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Was there not a series of posts here in discussion? If so, where have all the posts of such gone?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cre/dev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 8:36:46
> > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
>
> But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.True, they could.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 18:39:34
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
> > > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
> >
> > But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.
>
> True, they could.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You now write that you agree that the statement in question, [...convert to be saved...], is not supportive and you are allowing it anyway. You also wrote,[...I don't consider it hate-speech..].
I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence or , let's say, A Jewish reader in depression feels put down that you allow a statement that could be seen as saying that Jews are inferior human beings without salvation and need to convert to be saved. This could trigger a Jewish person in depression that came here for support to feel stigmatized and unworthy of being a member here as being seen as unequal and have feelings of unworthiness and hopelessness that could lead them to kill themselves.
Another aspect of this is that those readers that already have feelings of superiority over Jews, which could mean that they consider Jews to be inferior, could feel that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport and be easily recruited by terrorists bent on killing Jews.
I am asking that you open the post in question where the statement appears initially and type right down in the post something like:
Owners' note:
Be advised that I do not consider the statement to be support but I am going to let it stand anyway because in my thinking it will be goof this community as a whole to do so. You may think otherwise based on world events being shown on television now, and you may know the history of European fascism, and you may think that the statement is against the Jews here, which is what anti-Semitism entails. If you don't like it, you can contact that ADL or some other Jewish advocacy group and I could tell them that it's my forum and I'll do what I want to, do what I want to, and I am going to continue to allow the statement to be seen as supportive here because I think it will be good for this community as a whole, good for this community as a whole, to do so.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 11:21:59
Mr. Hsiung,
In order for our differences to be settled here, I am offering that in order to do so that the archives here be limited to one year. What this would entail is that:
A. When a post is one year old, it falls off the forum so that it can not be actuated again.
B. The 3 consecutive post rule be abolished
C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in toto
D. Parents seeking information concerning drugging their child be told the following:
We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
E. The TOS/FAQ be modified to reflect whatever you want changed and the changes will be made known to the readers by having an opening page with the changes and then a button to press to go to the forum saying that, "I have read the changes... proceed to the main page"
F. A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
G. other good and just additions/deletions
Lou Pilder
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 23, 2015, at 16:49:06
In reply to Lou's first worst offer to Mr.. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 11:21:59
>C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in total
People sometimes add to old threads.
>We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
This forum doesn't exist to promote one side of the discussion only. So long as they are civil, posters can write things which do not agree with your point of view.
>A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
We'd also need one atheist, one agnostic, one Humanist, one Christian, one muslim, one Sikh, one Hindu, one Buddist..... :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
Mr. Hsiung,
You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to. It also depends on what jurists consider to be in the definition of the terms used to decide if the speech is hate speech or not. In the U.S., the terms used are {disparaging} and {intimidating}. This means that if the speech intimidates or disparages the target person or group on , as here, religion. The speech could also apply to other entities such as ethnic origin, race, sexual orientation and such. But here in our discussion, the emphasis is on if the speech is disparaging and/or intimidation of Jews as the test if it is hate speech or not. Other countries have different tests to determine hate speech.
In France, the test is if the speech insults or defames, as in the case here, Jews. Or if the speech {incites discrimination against} or incites hatred or harm or provokes ethnic hatred..
You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
I do because I understand the meaning of {insult} and {defame} and {hatred} and what it means to {provoke} hatred. And I understand that your rules say that if you do nothing to the statement, that it is not against your rules, and until you post in your TOS/FAQ differently, I think that statement by you still means what it means and says what it says and is what it is as it can be seen. But more than that, you say that even if a statement is against your rules, you could allow it to be seen as supportive because {by allowing it to be seen as supportive, it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking}. I understand what you mean by that, and I say that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive, will in no wise in my thinking be good for this community as a whole. I am prohibited by you to post here what could inform readers about those that said the same thing that you have here in the annuals of European fascism. I base this in the fact that the statement has been used for the justification for slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination and genocide, and as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them. For people to trust one that allows anti-Semitic hate propaganda to be seen as supportive, could be un informed and prohibited to know, and it's so easy to persuade the un informed. It's so easy.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:24:58
In reply to Re: Lou's first worst offer to Mr.. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 23, 2015, at 16:49:06
> >C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in total
>
> People sometimes add to old threads.
>
> >We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
>
> This forum doesn't exist to promote one side of the discussion only. So long as they are civil, posters can write things which do not agree with your point of view.
>
> >A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
>
> We'd also need one atheist, one agnostic, one Humanist, one Christian, one muslim, one Sikh, one Hindu, one Buddist..... :)ed,
The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2015, at 12:04:46
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pil discussion-hate speech » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to. It also depends on what jurists consider to be in the definition of the terms used to decide if the speech is hate speech or not. In the U.S., the terms used are {disparaging} and {intimidating}. This means that if the speech intimidates or disparages the target person or group on , as here, religion. The speech could also apply to other entities such as ethnic origin, race, sexual orientation and such. But here in our discussion, the emphasis is on if the speech is disparaging and/or intimidation of Jews as the test if it is hate speech or not. Other countries have different tests to determine hate speech.
> In France, the test is if the speech insults or defames, as in the case here, Jews. Or if the speech {incites discrimination against} or incites hatred or harm or provokes ethnic hatred..
> You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
> I do because I understand the meaning of {insult} and {defame} and {hatred} and what it means to {provoke} hatred. And I understand that your rules say that if you do nothing to the statement, that it is not against your rules, and until you post in your TOS/FAQ differently, I think that statement by you still means what it means and says what it says and is what it is as it can be seen. But more than that, you say that even if a statement is against your rules, you could allow it to be seen as supportive because {by allowing it to be seen as supportive, it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking}. I understand what you mean by that, and I say that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive, will in no wise in my thinking be good for this community as a whole. I am prohibited by you to post here what could inform readers about those that said the same thing that you have here in the annuals of European fascism. I base this in the fact that the statement has been used for the justification for slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination and genocide, and as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them. For people to trust one that allows anti-Semitic hate propaganda to be seen as supportive, could be un informed and prohibited to know, and it's so easy to persuade the un informed. It's so easy.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
I now would like to include the following post in our discussion. I think that it is relevant here.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1075146.html
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 13:18:58
In reply to Lou's reply-izitsuportv » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:24:58
>The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
Support involves discussion. If a drug is beneficial to a child, then yes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 14:59:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-izitsuportv » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 13:18:58
> >The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
>
> Support involves discussion. If a drug is beneficial to a child, then yes.> ed,
What constitutes being beneficial?
Lou
>
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 17:02:21
In reply to Lou's reply-iyph » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 14:59:37
>What constitutes being beneficial?
That the child's mental health is improved in some way.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 19:52:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-iyph » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 17:02:21
> >What constitutes being beneficial?
>
> That the child's mental health is improved in some way.
>
> ed,
Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
Lou
>
>
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 27, 2015, at 3:52:30
In reply to Lou's reply-wuduadvo » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 19:52:03
Lou,
First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
>Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
How do you define addicting in this case?
Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
......................
In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
-How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
-Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
-What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
In terms of risks:
-What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
-How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
-How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
-How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
-What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
-What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
I hope this answers your question.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:34:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wuduadvo » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 27, 2015, at 3:52:30
> Lou,
>
> First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
>
> When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
>
> >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
>
> How do you define addicting in this case?
>
> Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
>
> ......................
>
> In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
>
> -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
>
> -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
>
> -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
>
> In terms of risks:
>
> -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
>
> -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
>
> -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
>
> -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
>
> -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
>
> -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
>
> In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
>
> The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
>
> I hope this answers your question.ed,
Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
Lou
[ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:41:45
In reply to Lou's reply--a perspective » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:34:26
> > Lou,
> >
> > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> >
> > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> >
> > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> >
> > How do you define addicting in this case?
> >
> > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> >
> > ......................
> >
> > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> >
> > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> >
> > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> >
> > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> >
> > In terms of risks:
> >
> > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> >
> > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> >
> > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> >
> > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> >
> > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> >
> > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> >
> > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> >
> > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> >
> > I hope this answers your question.
>
> ed,
> Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> Lou
> [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]correction,
[ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:47:04
In reply to correction-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:41:45
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> > >
> > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> > >
> > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> > >
> > > How do you define addicting in this case?
> > >
> > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> > >
> > > ......................
> > >
> > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> > >
> > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> > >
> > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> > >
> > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> > >
> > > In terms of risks:
> > >
> > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> > >
> > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> > >
> > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> > >
> > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> > >
> > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> > >
> > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> > >
> > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> > >
> > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> > >
> > > I hope this answers your question.
> >
> > ed,
> > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> > Lou
> > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
>
> correction,
> [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
> Lou
correction
[youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2015, at 10:02:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
> > > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
> >
> > But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.
>
> True, they could.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You say that you can leave statements that are not supportive here, including but not limited to defamation toward me and antisemitic propaganda that could stigmatize Jews and create a hostile environment here against Jews and spread to terrorists networks that could give them the thinking that a psychiatrist is ratifying the hate as I see what you are doing here.
What I am asking now is that you post here your thinking as why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation toward me to be seen here as supportive. In this posting that I am asking from you could include any struggle that you could be harboring in your mind to go against your own rules to allow the anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by you here without you posting your tag line to sanction the statements in question. If readers knew of your vision, if any, that you see happenijg in the future as allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here, that could go a long way for Jews and others to know what your thinking entails and they could respond accordingly. As of now, I do not know what this "good" is that will happen to your community by you allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation to be seen as supportive. Who does it support and why?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2015, at 10:25:27
In reply to correction 2-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:47:04
> > > > Lou,
> > > >
> > > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> > > >
> > > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> > > >
> > > > How do you define addicting in this case?
> > > >
> > > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> > > >
> > > > ......................
> > > >
> > > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> > > >
> > > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> > > >
> > > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> > > >
> > > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> > > >
> > > > In terms of risks:
> > > >
> > > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> > > >
> > > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> > > >
> > > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> > > >
> > > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> > > >
> > > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> > > >
> > > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> > > >
> > > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> > > >
> > > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this answers your question.
> > >
> > > ed,
> > > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> > > Lou
> > > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
> >
> > correction,
> > [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
> > Lou
> correction
> [youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]
>
ed,
To see the video,
bring up Google and type in:
[ youtube, ADHD Drugs: Medication or ? ]
you will see a pic...posted on Feb 11, 2013 and the time is 16:22
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2015, at 11:12:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pil discussion-hate speech » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
> I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence
I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. Or, if I'm leaving it to be seen as supportive, I'm also leaving your statements to be seen as supportive.
And, I'm less worried than you about those statements leading to violence.
--
> You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to.
True. I consider this my jurisdiction.
> You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
OK, reasonable people can disagree.
> as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them.
True, the historical record is rife with injustice, and unjust leaders. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In a way, I see you as the voice of eternal vigilance.
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.