![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by elanor roosevelt on March 21, 2016, at 21:48:57
In reply to Keep 'Lou' out., posted by SLS on March 11, 2016, at 6:32:18
why don't we just shun him
don't read don't react?
Posted by J Kelly on March 21, 2016, at 22:19:32
In reply to Re: Keep 'Lou' out., posted by elanor roosevelt on March 21, 2016, at 21:48:57
> why don't we just shun him
>
> don't read don't react?Because he frightens/upsets/and chases away new posters.
So I think the current policy is to ignore ignore ignore unless it involves a new poster.
Jade
Posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 5:33:17
In reply to Re: Keep trolls out » elanor roosevelt, posted by J Kelly on March 21, 2016, at 22:19:32
I wonder what newcomers will think if they see us shunning or attacking a poster that is obviously not doing well with their condition. Would that make them afraid that we would shun or attack them if they were off their meds? It might frighten them to see that.
Do you think we can contradict the anti-psychiatry stuff while keeping in mind that someone who posts so much of it is probably struggling?
I don't think anything we do will change or limit the posting. These posts have been going on for years, with only minor variations. Thus I think we are better off trying to preserve as supportive of an atmosphere as possible.
Posted by SLS on March 23, 2016, at 6:48:14
In reply to Re: how to respond to unusual posts, posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 5:33:17
All I asked is that people be mindful of the subject line. I hope you understand why.
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 16:30:56
In reply to Re: how to respond to unusual posts » Tabitha, posted by SLS on March 23, 2016, at 6:48:14
> All I asked is that people be mindful of the subject line. I hope you understand why.
>
>
> - ScottYes, I do understand. I regret posting what I did. It's really not my business to try to influence anyone regarding how they interact with unusual posters. People have surely already tried what I suggested.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2016, at 16:50:10
In reply to Re: poster's regret » SLS, posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 16:30:56
> > All I asked is that people be mindful of the subject line. I hope you understand why.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Yes, I do understand. I regret posting what I did. It's really not my business to try to influence anyone regarding how they interact with unusual posters. People have surely already tried what I suggested.
>
> Friends, be not deceived.
Scott has initiated inciting accusations about my character here drawing into the hate those ignorant of how anti-Semitism is created and developed in a community. The defamation is allowed by Mr. Hsiung here as he gives Scott immunity from his enforcement policy which inflicts emotional harm upon me over and over as the posts by him are read by new posters vulnerable to the psychiatrist's TOS here that he says that he is doing what will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by allowing hate to be seen as being supportive.
But behold! A member comes forward here and sees the hate being allowed and steps out of the pack of those that throw stones at me here to want to be known that she does not want to contribute to the harm done to me by Mr. Hsiung and his members in concert with him that defame me here. This generation shall not pass until all that I have said is fulfilled. For as the sun comes out of the East and sets in the West, so shall the truth that exposes the hate shine here so that lives can be saved and addictions and life-ruining conditions will be prevented. All it takes is one person to challenge the hate in a community to stop Mr. Hsiung and Scott and the pack creating and developing anti-Semitic feelings.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 19:01:51
In reply to Lou's response-shall arise » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2016, at 16:50:10
Lou, I don't think you're being fair to Scott when you talk to him in a way that could lead him to think you are accusing him of anti-Semitism.
I am glad you saw my words as supportive, or at least non-hateful. If you want to get more supportive replies from posters here, you can do far more than I or anyone else could do to influence people. Here are some ideas. Maybe you could act on at least one of them?
1. act on the request to stop changing subject lines to "Lou's reply". People can see that your name appears in the subject line as the poster. There is no need to also put your name in the subject line.
2. every now and then, try to make a post that doesn't mention anti-Semitism
3. talk about yourself so that people may better know you. some ideas:
- Did you go outside today? What did you see?
- What did you have for lunch?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2016, at 20:11:58
In reply to Re: reducing the discord » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on March 23, 2016, at 19:01:51
> Lou, I don't think you're being fair to Scott when you talk to him in a way that could lead him to think you are accusing him of anti-Semitism.
>
> I am glad you saw my words as supportive, or at least non-hateful. If you want to get more supportive replies from posters here, you can do far more than I or anyone else could do to influence people. Here are some ideas. Maybe you could act on at least one of them?
>
> 1. act on the request to stop changing subject lines to "Lou's reply". People can see that your name appears in the subject line as the poster. There is no need to also put your name in the subject line.
>
> 2. every now and then, try to make a post that doesn't mention anti-Semitism
>
> 3. talk about yourself so that people may better know you. some ideas:
> - Did you go outside today? What did you see?
> - What did you have for lunch?
>
> Tabitha,
You wrote about anti-Semitism here. It is much more than anti-Semitic epithets being allowed in a community that creates and develops anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism can be created and developed by historical tactics that you do not need to be a mastermind to do. Here, I see right through these tactics but others may be ignorant of them. Here is a list of the ones that are used in communities, schools, workplaces, universities ect. I would like for you to look at these.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 0:38:42
In reply to Lou's reply-creating and developing anti-Semitism » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2016, at 20:11:58
> > Tabitha,
> You wrote about anti-Semitism here. It is much more than anti-Semitic epithets being allowed in a community that creates and develops anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism can be created and developed by historical tactics that you do not need to be a mastermind to do. Here, I see right through these tactics but others may be ignorant of them. Here is a list of the ones that are used in communities, schools, workplaces, universities ect. I would like for you to look at these.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
>
>OK, I read your list. I guess I can see how you would think some of these things match what you experience here at babble:
> B. Punishing a Jew or Jews for their unique beliefs or for their refusal to accept the claimes of Christianity.
> C. Having an attitude or even a policy directed toward a Jew or Jews as a people
> D. Placing a restriction on a Jew in a community while not enforcing that same restriction on others.
> E. Using a Jew or the Jewish people as a scapegoat for problems in a community.
> F. Fueling anti-Semitic feelings by allowing ideology that purports that one faith is superior to the Jewish faith.Yes these things, if they happen, *could possibly be* symptoms of anti-Semitism in a community. But they could also be:
1. Persons of other faiths think their faiths are superior to all faiths, including the Jewish faith. Thus, stating the superiority of their faith is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
2. Persons might not like or agree with the statements of a particular person who happens to be Jewish. Reacting from this disagreement is not necessarily anti-Semitism.It's like, I am a female person. Sometimes people disagree with me, insult me, ignore me, or otherwise lead me to feel put down. But it doesn't follow that they hate female persons in general. It's possible they do, but I can't really know that, and it's not generally helpful to accuse people of misogyny.
So what I am saying Lou, is that you are more than just a Jewish person. You are a human person too, and it's possible that some conflict you face has nothing to do with Jewishness. Also, sometimes it is good to set aside one goal (warning people about anti-Semitism) in favor of a different goal, such as making friends, or exchanging information with people with similar interests.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 7:16:37
In reply to Re: creating and developing anti-Semitism » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 0:38:42
> > > Tabitha,
> > You wrote about anti-Semitism here. It is much more than anti-Semitic epithets being allowed in a community that creates and develops anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism can be created and developed by historical tactics that you do not need to be a mastermind to do. Here, I see right through these tactics but others may be ignorant of them. Here is a list of the ones that are used in communities, schools, workplaces, universities ect. I would like for you to look at these.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
> >
> >
>
> OK, I read your list. I guess I can see how you would think some of these things match what you experience here at babble:
>
> > B. Punishing a Jew or Jews for their unique beliefs or for their refusal to accept the claimes of Christianity.
> > C. Having an attitude or even a policy directed toward a Jew or Jews as a people
> > D. Placing a restriction on a Jew in a community while not enforcing that same restriction on others.
> > E. Using a Jew or the Jewish people as a scapegoat for problems in a community.
> > F. Fueling anti-Semitic feelings by allowing ideology that purports that one faith is superior to the Jewish faith.
>
> Yes these things, if they happen, *could possibly be* symptoms of anti-Semitism in a community. But they could also be:
>
> 1. Persons of other faiths think their faiths are superior to all faiths, including the Jewish faith. Thus, stating the superiority of their faith is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
> 2. Persons might not like or agree with the statements of a particular person who happens to be Jewish. Reacting from this disagreement is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
>
> It's like, I am a female person. Sometimes people disagree with me, insult me, ignore me, or otherwise lead me to feel put down. But it doesn't follow that they hate female persons in general. It's possible they do, but I can't really know that, and it's not generally helpful to accuse people of misogyny.
>
> So what I am saying Lou, is that you are more than just a Jewish person. You are a human person too, and it's possible that some conflict you face has nothing to do with Jewishness. Also, sometimes it is good to set aside one goal (warning people about anti-Semitism) in favor of a different goal, such as making friends, or exchanging information with people with similar interests.
>
Tabitha,
You wrote in a sense that what is posted that defames me here could be motivated by other intent than anti-Semitism. In order to understand how that tactic can be exposed to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to advance hatred toward the Jews, other posts by the individuals can be compared as to indicate their intent. In Scott's case, let us look at this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
Mr. Hsiung allowed Scott to post the anti-Semitic statement used for centuries to commit mass-murder against Jews by refusing to post his tag line to be civil where Scott originally posted it. This hateful revulsion allowed by Mr. Hsiung turns my stomach. But it is much worse than that. For the dehumanization of the Jews allowed to be seen in Scott's statement directed against me, allows readers to think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the hate. And worse, that by Mr. Hsiung allowing it, readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole because it is in Mr. Hsiung's thinking that it will. This sets up more hatred toward the Jews to be allowed as readers could see that Scott is exempt from Mr. Hsiung's enforcement policy so they could join Scott in a pack of Jew-haters to inflict emotional pain upon me because they see that if he is exempt and allowed to post anti-Semitic hate toward me here, then so shall they also be, and inflict more emotional distress upon me as is plainly visible here in the ganging up on me by many posters revering Scott and joining in with him in his defamation of me here all allowed by Mr. Hsiung. This is what Mr. Hsiung is promoting here as being supportive for he states that being supportive takes precedence. What has been precedence by leaders that foster hatred toward the Jews is in the historical record.
Never again.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 9:22:39
In reply to Re: how to respond to unusual posts » Tabitha, posted by SLS on March 23, 2016, at 6:48:14
> All I asked is that people be mindful of the subject line. I hope you understand why.
>
>
> - ScottFriends, Be not deceived.
Let us look at this post.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20150901/msgs/1082357.html
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2016, at 9:47:26
In reply to Lou's reply-never again » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 7:16:37
Lou knock it off. No time for this same thing over and over again. You wish to be ignored? Okay done. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 9:47:54
In reply to Lou's reply-never again » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 7:16:37
> > > > Tabitha,
> > > You wrote about anti-Semitism here. It is much more than anti-Semitic epithets being allowed in a community that creates and develops anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism can be created and developed by historical tactics that you do not need to be a mastermind to do. Here, I see right through these tactics but others may be ignorant of them. Here is a list of the ones that are used in communities, schools, workplaces, universities ect. I would like for you to look at these.
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > OK, I read your list. I guess I can see how you would think some of these things match what you experience here at babble:
> >
> > > B. Punishing a Jew or Jews for their unique beliefs or for their refusal to accept the claimes of Christianity.
> > > C. Having an attitude or even a policy directed toward a Jew or Jews as a people
> > > D. Placing a restriction on a Jew in a community while not enforcing that same restriction on others.
> > > E. Using a Jew or the Jewish people as a scapegoat for problems in a community.
> > > F. Fueling anti-Semitic feelings by allowing ideology that purports that one faith is superior to the Jewish faith.
> >
> > Yes these things, if they happen, *could possibly be* symptoms of anti-Semitism in a community. But they could also be:
> >
> > 1. Persons of other faiths think their faiths are superior to all faiths, including the Jewish faith. Thus, stating the superiority of their faith is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
> > 2. Persons might not like or agree with the statements of a particular person who happens to be Jewish. Reacting from this disagreement is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
> >
> > It's like, I am a female person. Sometimes people disagree with me, insult me, ignore me, or otherwise lead me to feel put down. But it doesn't follow that they hate female persons in general. It's possible they do, but I can't really know that, and it's not generally helpful to accuse people of misogyny.
> >
> > So what I am saying Lou, is that you are more than just a Jewish person. You are a human person too, and it's possible that some conflict you face has nothing to do with Jewishness. Also, sometimes it is good to set aside one goal (warning people about anti-Semitism) in favor of a different goal, such as making friends, or exchanging information with people with similar interests.
> >
> Tabitha,
> You wrote in a sense that what is posted that defames me here could be motivated by other intent than anti-Semitism. In order to understand how that tactic can be exposed to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to advance hatred toward the Jews, other posts by the individuals can be compared as to indicate their intent. In Scott's case, let us look at this:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> Mr. Hsiung allowed Scott to post the anti-Semitic statement used for centuries to commit mass-murder against Jews by refusing to post his tag line to be civil where Scott originally posted it. This hateful revulsion allowed by Mr. Hsiung turns my stomach. But it is much worse than that. For the dehumanization of the Jews allowed to be seen in Scott's statement directed against me, allows readers to think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the hate. And worse, that by Mr. Hsiung allowing it, readers could think that it will be good for this community as a whole because it is in Mr. Hsiung's thinking that it will. This sets up more hatred toward the Jews to be allowed as readers could see that Scott is exempt from Mr. Hsiung's enforcement policy so they could join Scott in a pack of Jew-haters to inflict emotional pain upon me because they see that if he is exempt and allowed to post anti-Semitic hate toward me here, then so shall they also be, and inflict more emotional distress upon me as is plainly visible here in the ganging up on me by many posters revering Scott and joining in with him in his defamation of me here all allowed by Mr. Hsiung. This is what Mr. Hsiung is promoting here as being supportive for he states that being supportive takes precedence. What has been precedence by leaders that foster hatred toward the Jews is in the historical record.
> Never again.
> Lou
>
> Tabitha,
Let us also look at this:
Lou.... http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1042409.html
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 15:26:38
In reply to Lou's reply-never again » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 7:16:37
> let us look at this:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> Mr. Hsiung allowed Scott to post the anti-Semitic statement used for centuries to commit mass-murder against Jews by refusing to post his tag line to be civil where Scott originally posted it.Viewed in context of a long and contentious thread, I'm not sure of the intent when Scott said "Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time." One possibility is that he was frustrated by the discussion and was teasing you. Another is that he was making a witty remark as a way of connecting with others, without necessarily intending to offend you. Or it's possible he is Christian and was inviting you to convert, because he thinks the Christian faith is the best. Regardless, none of those motivations necessarily demonstrate anti-Semitism.
I am afraid nothing I say will succeed in helping you to see other possibilities than anti-Semitism in people's interactions with you. It makes me wonder then, do you know of any other websites were you see less anti-Semitism?
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 16:10:32
In reply to Lou's reply-never again » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 7:16:37
> let us look at this:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.htmlWhile you are reviewing that thread, perhaps you should take a look at this post as well
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1052380.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 16:12:32
In reply to Re: never again » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 15:26:38
> > let us look at this:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
> > Mr. Hsiung allowed Scott to post the anti-Semitic statement used for centuries to commit mass-murder against Jews by refusing to post his tag line to be civil where Scott originally posted it.
>
> Viewed in context of a long and contentious thread, I'm not sure of the intent when Scott said "Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time." One possibility is that he was frustrated by the discussion and was teasing you. Another is that he was making a witty remark as a way of connecting with others, without necessarily intending to offend you. Or it's possible he is Christian and was inviting you to convert, because he thinks the Christian faith is the best. Regardless, none of those motivations necessarily demonstrate anti-Semitism.
>
> I am afraid nothing I say will succeed in helping you to see other possibilities than anti-Semitism in people's interactions with you. It makes me wonder then, do you know of any other websites were you see less anti-Semitism?Tabitha, The statement in and of itself puts down Jews as having an inferior religion that does not save so that converting to Christendom would. This show a superiority over Judaism or that Judaism is inferior to Christendom. The definition of anti-Semitism is if it puts down Jews. The statement puts down Jews and is an anti-Semitic statement.
There are more issues here. One is that Mr. Hsiung allows it to stand which allows readers to think that anti-Semitism is supportive by him and that he thinks by allowing it to be seen as civil, that it will be good for his community as a whole. This is a great danger here to Jews and shows discrimination by Mr. Hsiung in relation to allowing anti-Semitism to stand which is an abuse of power. The intent of Scott is not at issue because anyone can say what their intent is after the fact. That does not annul what the statement purports as can be seen. I still want the statment addressed by Mr. Hsiung where it is posted originally, for as long as it can be seen as being supportive, the fire of hate is still burning and children reading here could be influenced by Mr. Hsiung to embrace antisemitic hate, for a psychiatrist is a powerful influence to vulnerable readers here under the influence of mind-altering drugs. The hate seen as being supportive by Mr. Hsiung could cause Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence and Christendom readers here could be infused with (false) feelings of superiority that could induce them to commit anti-Semitic acts. Those groups bent on the destruction of Jews could have their agenda of their furnace of hate stoked by Mr. Hsiung by him showing that he in his thinking that anti-Semitism is civil and supportive and will be good for his community as a whole. He then could be considered by a subset of people an accessory to hatred toward Jews by not posting a repudiation to the statement where it is originally posted.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 16:59:09
In reply to Lou's reply-the psychiatrist's influence » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 16:12:32
> The definition of anti-Semitism is if it puts down Jews. The statement puts down Jews and is an anti-Semitic statement.
I think you're mistaken. Here are two definitions of anti-Semitism from Merriam-Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti%E2%80%93Semitism
"Simple Definition: hatred of Jewish people"
"Full Definition: hostility toward or discrimitation against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"
What you argue, over and over, is that
- any statement stating or suggesting that some religion is better than Judaism is anti-Semitic.
- any statement that could lead you, Lou Pilder, to feel put down is anti-SemiticIt is quite a stretch to say that your examples of anti-Semitism meet either the Simple or Full definitions of the term from the dictionary.
Can you answer a question so that I might better understand what you define as anti-Semitic acts? Let's say you are in line in a busy store or government office and someone cuts in front of you. Is that an anti-Semitic action? Will it incite the other people in line to hate Jews and commit violence?
> The hate seen as being supportive by Mr. Hsiung could cause Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence and Christendom readers here could be infused with (false) feelings of superiority that could induce them to commit anti-Semitic acts. Those groups bent on the destruction of Jews could have their agenda of their furnace of hate stoked by Mr. Hsiung
I guess I don't think that people are so weak-willed that being exposed to hate will cause them to adopt that hate and go on a destructive rampage. There is so much hate to choose from. We would never get anything done except persecuting members of marginalized groups.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 18:40:27
In reply to Re: the psychiatrist's influence » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 16:59:09
> > The definition of anti-Semitism is if it puts down Jews. The statement puts down Jews and is an anti-Semitic statement.
>
> I think you're mistaken. Here are two definitions of anti-Semitism from Merriam-Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti%E2%80%93Semitism
>
> "Simple Definition: hatred of Jewish people"
>
> "Full Definition: hostility toward or discrimitation against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"
>
> What you argue, over and over, is that
> - any statement stating or suggesting that some religion is better than Judaism is anti-Semitic.
> - any statement that could lead you, Lou Pilder, to feel put down is anti-Semitic
>
> It is quite a stretch to say that your examples of anti-Semitism meet either the Simple or Full definitions of the term from the dictionary.
>
> Can you answer a question so that I might better understand what you define as anti-Semitic acts? Let's say you are in line in a busy store or government office and someone cuts in front of you. Is that an anti-Semitic action? Will it incite the other people in line to hate Jews and commit violence?
>
> > The hate seen as being supportive by Mr. Hsiung could cause Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence and Christendom readers here could be infused with (false) feelings of superiority that could induce them to commit anti-Semitic acts. Those groups bent on the destruction of Jews could have their agenda of their furnace of hate stoked by Mr. Hsiung
>
> I guess I don't think that people are so weak-willed that being exposed to hate will cause them to adopt that hate and go on a destructive rampage. There is so much hate to choose from. We would never get anything done except persecuting members of marginalized groups.
>
Tabitha, You wrote,[...if it puts down Jews...]. The definition used here as to if a statement here is anti-Semitic is if the statement puts down Jews.
You wrote,[...discrimination against Jews as a religion...]. (is anti-Semitism)
The prohibition to me here by Mr. Hsiung could fall into your category. I am also prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post the link to his prohibition to me here. But others could , so look at this post and in the post is a link to the prohibition to me by Mr. Hsiung.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1076922.html
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 19:25:42
In reply to Lou's reply-discrimination against Jews religion » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 18:40:27
> Tabitha, You wrote,[...if it puts down Jews...]. The definition used here as to if a statement here is anti-Semitic is if the statement puts down Jews.No, you wrote "if it puts down Jews". The dictionary definition that I wrote is "hatred of Jews". I think there is a significant difference between being put down and being hated.
Also, you did not answer my questions. Why not? Do I need to clarify anything?
> You wrote,[...discrimination against Jews as a religion...]. (is anti-Semitism)
> The prohibition to me here by Mr. Hsiung could fall into your category. I am also prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post the link to his prohibition to me here. But others could , so look at this post and in the post is a link to the prohibition to me by Mr. Hsiung.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1076922.html
>I think it is pretty amazing that you recall a thread from 2002 and have been holding to the rule set by Dr Bob that long ago. It shows some real perseverance. I think Dr Bob had relaxed the rules before he quit moderating here, but it's up to you if you want to stick to the original rules.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 19:51:32
In reply to Re: anti-Semitism and prohibitions » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 19:25:42
>
> > Tabitha, You wrote,[...if it puts down Jews...]. The definition used here as to if a statement here is anti-Semitic is if the statement puts down Jews.
>
> No, you wrote "if it puts down Jews". The dictionary definition that I wrote is "hatred of Jews". I think there is a significant difference between being put down and being hated.
>
> Also, you did not answer my questions. Why not? Do I need to clarify anything?
>
>
> > You wrote,[...discrimination against Jews as a religion...]. (is anti-Semitism)
> > The prohibition to me here by Mr. Hsiung could fall into your category. I am also prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post the link to his prohibition to me here. But others could , so look at this post and in the post is a link to the prohibition to me by Mr. Hsiung.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1076922.html
> >
>
> I think it is pretty amazing that you recall a thread from 2002 and have been holding to the rule set by Dr Bob that long ago. It shows some real perseverance. I think Dr Bob had relaxed the rules before he quit moderating here, but it's up to you if you want to stick to the original rules.
>
> Tabitha, You wrote,[...(Mr. Hsiung) has relaxed the rules...it's up to you if you want to abide by the rules...].
I do not see it that way. I think that his rules are still the same because the TOS/FAQ still has the same rules. I consider that something else is happening here because those rules are still there and if he wanted to change his rules the TOS/FAQ would show such. The new people read the TOS and take him at his word. I have also taken him at his word. So new people see that he says that he wants readers to trust him in that he is doing what he think will be good for the community as a whole and practice the Golden Rule. So I see what he is doing completely different that follows a script that could IMHO lead to the deaths of many readers here and of innocent children. You see, readers can see that defamation against me is being supportive because his TOS states that support takes precedence. If he posted in his TOS that support does not take precedence, then you could have a case. But that has not been done. Precedence means what it means. And children could take Mr. Hsiung at his word. I am sticking to the prohibitions to me here by Mr. Hsiung and abiding by the TOS here as humanly possible. I could make a mistake like any other poster. The tragedy here is that Mr. Hsiung violates his own TOS that states that when he is not on line, he has a deputy be in his place. Since that is not evident, a subset of readers could think that he is misleading readers which could cause the deaths of some readers that have taken him at his word. This could happen because the site becomes distorted, misleading and not accurate that could cause [people to take these drugs thinking that they are safer than they really are and be killed by the drugs. I think that Mr. Hsiung has a duty and responsibility to abide by his word in his TOS to prevent suicides and deaths from the drugs. This is one reason that I am here, to save lives in spite of what he has done here. Those that suffer a horrible death by these drugs, their blood will not be upon me.
Lou
>
>
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 20:17:26
In reply to Lou's reply-their blood » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2016, at 19:51:32
> I do not see it that way. I think that his rules are still the same because the TOS/FAQ still has the same rules. I consider that something else is happening here because those rules are still there and if he wanted to change his rules the TOS/FAQ would show such. The new people read the TOS and take him at his word. I have also taken him at his word.
OK, that's one way of looking at it. I'm trying to follow the old rules as well as I can, too. I like civility better than the alternatives.
> So I see what he is doing completely different that follows a script that could IMHO lead to the deaths of many readers here and of innocent children.
It's good that you qualify it with "IMHO". IMHO, this site doesn't create such huge risk.
> I think that Mr. Hsiung has a duty and responsibility to abide by his word in his TOS to prevent suicides and deaths from the drugs. This is one reason that I am here, to save lives in spite of what he has done here.
>
>Saving lives is a good goal. I think Dr Bob and everyone here shares that goal. We just disagree about how best to go about it.
Posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 20:28:16
In reply to Re: rules and goals, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 20:17:26
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2016, at 5:41:01
In reply to Re: rules and goals, posted by Tabitha on March 24, 2016, at 20:17:26
> > I do not see it that way. I think that his rules are still the same because the TOS/FAQ still has the same rules. I consider that something else is happening here because those rules are still there and if he wanted to change his rules the TOS/FAQ would show such. The new people read the TOS and take him at his word. I have also taken him at his word.
>
> OK, that's one way of looking at it. I'm trying to follow the old rules as well as I can, too. I like civility better than the alternatives.
>
> > So I see what he is doing completely different that follows a script that could IMHO lead to the deaths of many readers here and of innocent children.
>
> It's good that you qualify it with "IMHO". IMHO, this site doesn't create such huge risk.
>
> > I think that Mr. Hsiung has a duty and responsibility to abide by his word in his TOS to prevent suicides and deaths from the drugs. This is one reason that I am here, to save lives in spite of what he has done here.
> >
> >
>
> Saving lives is a good goal. I think Dr Bob and everyone here shares that goal. We just disagree about how best to go about it.
>
> Tabitha,
You wrote that you think that Mr. Hsiung and everyone here shares your goal of wanting to save lives here...].
I am unsure as to how you make that claim. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. Antisemitic statements being allowed to be seen here as supportive by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.
B. Defamation posted here against you, Lou, being allowed by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.
C. Scapegoating allowed here by using you, Lou, as a scapegoat for the real or imagined ills of this community will save lives here.
D. By Mr. Hsiung not providing a deputy while Mr. Hsiung is not on line will save lives here.
E. Allowing hatred toward the Jews to be posted here without Mr. Hsiung posting his tag line to be civil will save lives here.
F. Allowing posts that insult Judaism will save lives here.
G. Allowing Scott to advocate to not read my posts here will save lives here.
H. By Mr. Hsiung altering his own drafted rules so that anti-Semitism could be seen as being supportive will save lives here.
K. By Mr. Hsiung prohibiting me to post the foundation of Judaism here, lives will be saved here. L. The harm that could come to me by Mr. Hsiung allowing the hatred toward me to be seen as being supportive by him here, will save lives here
M. Mr. Hsiung is acting in good faith here.
N. Mr. Hsiung's moderation here does not constitute deliberate misconduct.
P. The use of discrimination by Mr. Hsiung which is an abuse of power by him not acting on my notifications to him for years, will save lives here.
R. By Mr. Hsiung allowing the promotion of combinations of drugs that could kill the person taking them, will save lives here.
S. If I was the moderator here, Lou, I would allow the same thing to happen to you that Mr. Hsiung is allowing here.
Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2016, at 7:04:34
In reply to Lou's reply-an abuse of power » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2016, at 5:41:01
> > > I do not see it that way. I think that his rules are still the same because the TOS/FAQ still has the same rules. I consider that something else is happening here because those rules are still there and if he wanted to change his rules the TOS/FAQ would show such. The new people read the TOS and take him at his word. I have also taken him at his word.
> >
> > OK, that's one way of looking at it. I'm trying to follow the old rules as well as I can, too. I like civility better than the alternatives.
> >
> > > So I see what he is doing completely different that follows a script that could IMHO lead to the deaths of many readers here and of innocent children.
> >
> > It's good that you qualify it with "IMHO". IMHO, this site doesn't create such huge risk.
> >
> > > I think that Mr. Hsiung has a duty and responsibility to abide by his word in his TOS to prevent suicides and deaths from the drugs. This is one reason that I am here, to save lives in spite of what he has done here.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Saving lives is a good goal. I think Dr Bob and everyone here shares that goal. We just disagree about how best to go about it.
> >
> > Tabitha,
> You wrote that you think that Mr. Hsiung and everyone here shares your goal of wanting to save lives here...].
> I am unsure as to how you make that claim. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> True or False:
> A. Antisemitic statements being allowed to be seen here as supportive by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.
> B. Defamation posted here against you, Lou, being allowed by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.
> C. Scapegoating allowed here by using you, Lou, as a scapegoat for the real or imagined ills of this community will save lives here.
> D. By Mr. Hsiung not providing a deputy while Mr. Hsiung is not on line will save lives here.
> E. Allowing hatred toward the Jews to be posted here without Mr. Hsiung posting his tag line to be civil will save lives here.
> F. Allowing posts that insult Judaism will save lives here.
> G. Allowing Scott to advocate to not read my posts here will save lives here.
> H. By Mr. Hsiung altering his own drafted rules so that anti-Semitism could be seen as being supportive will save lives here.
> K. By Mr. Hsiung prohibiting me to post the foundation of Judaism here, lives will be saved here. L. The harm that could come to me by Mr. Hsiung allowing the hatred toward me to be seen as being supportive by him here, will save lives here
> M. Mr. Hsiung is acting in good faith here.
> N. Mr. Hsiung's moderation here does not constitute deliberate misconduct.
> P. The use of discrimination by Mr. Hsiung which is an abuse of power by him not acting on my notifications to him for years, will save lives here.
> R. By Mr. Hsiung allowing the promotion of combinations of drugs that could kill the person taking them, will save lives here.
> S. If I was the moderator here, Lou, I would allow the same thing to happen to you that Mr. Hsiung is allowing here.
> Lou
> >
> Tabitha, In any reply to me here, I would like for you to read the following post from here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1080295.html
>
Posted by Tabitha on March 25, 2016, at 15:24:15
In reply to Lou's reply-an abuse of power » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2016, at 5:41:01
> > Saving lives is a good goal. I think Dr Bob and everyone here shares that goal. We just disagree about how best to go about it.
> >
> > Tabitha,
> You wrote that you think that Mr. Hsiung and everyone here shares your goal of wanting to save lives here...].
> I am unsure as to how you make that claim.
Well it's almost self-evident to me that people creating or participating in a mental health support forum want to save lives and reduce suffering. But I can spell out my reasoning:1. People here share information and encouragement to get medical treatment for mental illness. Mental illness carries a risk of suicide (for instance 6-15% lifetime risk for bipolar), and medication reduces the risk (see citation below). Thus I assume people want to save lives.
2. When someone in the group is suicidal, people provide emotional support and advise medical intervention. Dr Bob has even notified authorities resulting in home checks on people who indicated risk of suicide in their posts. Thus I assume people want to save lives.
3. When someone in the group does commit suicide, people are very distressed and sad. Thus I assume people want to save lives.
====There is good evidence that medication reduces suicide risk for people with mental health conditions, such as this study summarizing 20 years worth of clinical trials on lithium:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504869/
From this paper: "One of the first descriptions of lithiums anti-suicidal properties is dated back to 1972 when Barraclough described the current and past clinical history of 100 suicide cases. He postulated that as many as a fifth of these suicides may have been prevented if lithium had been used."
> If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
> True or False:
> A. Antisemitic statements being allowed to be seen here as supportive by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.
> B. Defamation posted here against you, Lou, being allowed by Mr. Hsiung will save lives here.I can't answer because for nearly all the statements, there is an assumption built into the question that I think is false. It is like this question "Answer true or false. I have stopped kicking puppies". I don't kick puppies, so I can't really answer true or false to a question that assumes I kick puppies.
Do you like puppies?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.