![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 18:35:16
In reply to Re: Anti-Semitism (Please Read), posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 18:18:11
As I see it the monotheistic (and for all I know some other) religions make exclusive claims, which, when repeated, can be hurtful to some people.
And as that is the nature of our reality there is nothing much we can do about it.But if Lou were to post exclusive claims revealed to him, I feel confident that it would be OK, in spite of the fact that he has been told otherwise.
The content of Lou's revelation is poetic and benign, surely?
That's how I see it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 18, 2008, at 12:27:33
In reply to Re: Anti-Semitism (Please Read), posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 18:35:16
Friends,
If you are considering responding here in this thread, or parallel threads, I would like for you to consider the following link's contents.
In the first link, Mr. Hsiung agrees that by him not addressing a post that could , let's say, arrouse anti-Semitic feelings, or have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down or accused, that there is the potential for some to think that it is OK to post such here. He also states that since that is true, that he should doo more in situations like that. This was in December, 2004 when he posted that. (citation negtrt-13)
Then Mr. Hsiung posts that if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing about it, that he agrees that it means that what is in question that is brought to his attention is not against the rules of the forum here.
He also posts that he takes responsibility for what he posts, though. (citation negtrt 12)
Now I ask for that these statementsd by Mr. Hsiung be also incorporated in making your own determination about the issues involved here and I think that if you do so, that you could post a more informed response.
Lou
citation negtrt 13
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/424336.html
citation negtrt 12
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
Posted by LostBoyinNCBecksDark on November 18, 2008, at 20:42:50
In reply to Anti-Semitism (Please Read), posted by Dena on November 15, 2008, at 19:27:59
I will say this much. A lot of the reason why better strides have not been made regarding treating severe mental illness has to do with the fact psychiatry was sidetracked for fifty years with Freudian psychobabble. jews jumped all over the Freud bandwagon and many in the mental health field are jewish. Many jews are strong believers in the environment versus genetics and biology when it comes to the subject of severe mental illness and this stems from the fact that jews tend to be leftist (thats a hard fact BTW), tend to vote Democrat, are more liberal than most other folks and like I said, many are STRONG believers in environment versus genes.
Its my belief that had psychiatry taken a more Neurology approach and not gotten sidetracked with what the Germans called "jewish science" AKA Freudian crappola, that some of us might be living better lives today thru better brain science.
Not all jews are *ssh*l*s, but too many of them are. I suspect its because of the way the world has treated them over the centuries. You might be an *ssh*l* too if you had been persecuted the way theyve been persecuted. Still, being persecuted religiously and politically does not give them the right for them to cop the bad attitude so many of them have.
And again, their overriding emphasis on the environment and negative early childhood experiences (Freud) doesnt help the rest of us with serious psychiatric problems.
LostBoyinNC
Posted by Deputy Dinah on November 18, 2008, at 20:57:45
In reply to Re: jews and psychiatry, posted by LostBoyinNCBecksDark on November 18, 2008, at 20:42:50
> Not all jews are *ssh*l*s, but too many of them are.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
You've been blocked before for violation of site guidelines, and per my calculations, this block will be for the maximum of one year.
If this is incorrect, Dr. Bob will correct it.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 22:44:51
In reply to Re: jews and psychiatry, posted by LostBoyinNCBecksDark on November 18, 2008, at 20:42:50
For all its drawbacks and therapeutic limitations, psychoanalysis was one of the great achievements of the C20.
Posted by Dena on November 19, 2008, at 0:24:56
In reply to Blocked for a year » LostBoyinNCBecksDark, posted by Deputy Dinah on November 18, 2008, at 20:57:45
Thank you, Dinah, for that.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by BayLeaf on November 19, 2008, at 6:16:28
In reply to Blocked for a year » LostBoyinNCBecksDark, posted by Deputy Dinah on November 18, 2008, at 20:57:45
Thank you Dinah!
Posted by yxibow on November 19, 2008, at 8:27:10
In reply to My Vote for Best Block of 2008 » Deputy Dinah, posted by BayLeaf on November 19, 2008, at 6:16:28
Shalom aleichem.
I've never heard of so much anti-semitism.
Does one know why there is a brain-trust that happens to be partially Jewish in this country?
Because the last people, the generation of my ancestor line, to get out of Europe were not just peddlers and the like, they were scientists fleeing Europe and persecution.
I'm happy to have had an inventor for a Grandfather I never got to see because of heart conditions who would be proud of me.
New waves of immigration came from Russia and Iran fleeing after the Shah was overthrown.These aren't the only reasons but they are plenty of them for those who didn't make aliyah (become Jewish citizens of the state of Israel) and landed on our hopefully welcome shores. It wasn't a welcome time for some.
Anyway I digress, there is intelligence among all faiths in this country, doctors, etc, I'm just saying if one thinks there is a disproportional amount in one area, maybe there is a demographic reason.I encourage anyone to watch the Jewish Americans if they are interested in general faith and more importantly culture movies. Very well done PBS series.
Shalom.
-- Jay
Posted by Phillipa on November 19, 2008, at 12:25:36
In reply to Re: My Vote for Best Block of 2008 » BayLeaf, posted by yxibow on November 19, 2008, at 8:27:10
Didn't know that about Freud as he lived in Vienna Austria was there once and wanted to visit his home. Digressing her. Shalom from me too Love Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on November 19, 2008, at 15:18:18
In reply to Re: My Vote for Best Block of 2008 » BayLeaf, posted by yxibow on November 19, 2008, at 8:27:10
That was awful and upsetting.
Thank you, Dinah.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2008, at 16:01:24
In reply to Re: My Vote for Best Block of 2008 » BayLeaf, posted by yxibow on November 19, 2008, at 8:27:10
Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread or a parallel thread, I am requesting that you click on the offered link here that brings up a thread for your examination.
I think that if you do, that there could be more understanding of the issues involved here which are comming out in this thread that may have been unbeknownst to some.
I would like for those interested in my perspective to email me if they like after reading the thread in question via this link.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Posted by obsidian on November 19, 2008, at 16:27:51
In reply to Re: jews and psychiatry, posted by LostBoyinNCBecksDark on November 18, 2008, at 20:42:50
wow...geez man
you really think that?As most everyone knows Freud was a neurologist, and I don't think that his departure to psychoanalysis made him leave it all behind
I think he really did try to understand the ways that things can manifest themselves physically as well as mentallyA lot of what is written about these days regarding neuroscience is not necessarily in contrast to freudian theories
"The Right Brain and the Unconscious"
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2008, at 16:59:13
In reply to Lou's response to aspects-phawstrheht, posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2008, at 16:01:24
Friends,
If you are considering responding here, I am requesting that you examine the thread that the following post brings up. If you could, I think that there could be a better understanding of the issues involved here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/402039.html
and also;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405068.html
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 19, 2008, at 17:22:37
In reply to Lou's response to aspects-hudou, posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2008, at 16:59:13
a friendly caution for all....
While support and understanding of deputy actions is always *much* appreciated, please keep in mind that the guidelines apply to everyone, including blocked posters.
Posts which could be interpreted as 'celebrating' a block, or negatively characterizing what the blocked poster wrote, are likely to be in violation of the civility guidelines.
Any discussions of Freud or other non-administrative topics, should be held on the appropriate board(s).
Thanks in advance for helping keep Babble civil and [somewhat!?] organized...
-- 10der
Posted by BayLeaf on November 19, 2008, at 19:31:52
In reply to Please remember guidelines/keep it administrative, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 19, 2008, at 17:22:37
It is certainly worth the possibility of a block to do the right thing.
What we saw was vile hate speech - which should never be tolerated. I can't help but express gratitude that it was quickly stopped.
We complain a lot here. It seems to me that we should express thanks when appropriate as well. :-)
Bay
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 19, 2008, at 20:43:40
In reply to Re: Please remember guidelines/keep it administrative » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by BayLeaf on November 19, 2008, at 19:31:52
> It is certainly worth the possibility of a block to do the right thing.
>
> What we saw was vile hate speech - which should never be tolerated. I can't help but express gratitude that it was quickly stopped.
>
> We complain a lot here. It seems to me that we should express thanks when appropriate as well. :-)
>
> BayBay,
You wrote,[...do the right thing...hate speech..never be tolerated...]
The aspect of tolerating generally means to allow without sanction.
Hate speech is generally directed at groups of people. This could include racism which could include anti-Semitism.
I would like for interested members here to examine the thread that the following link brings up and email me if you like concerning the Law of Moses and how the Jews worship their God concerning that, and if you are going to post in this thread to consider the aspects in the thread that the post in the link brings up.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/776479.html
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 19, 2008, at 21:53:00
In reply to Re: Please remember guidelines/keep it administrative » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by BayLeaf on November 19, 2008, at 19:31:52
> It is certainly worth the possibility of a block to do the right thing.
Yes, everyone makes their choices, as each new situation dictates and according to their own conscience. I understand that.
> What we saw was vile hate speech
However, as Dr. Bob asks that the civility rules be applied to *all* posters, and the FAQ remind us "free speech is limited here," I'm going to ask you not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused and put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
> We complain a lot here. It seems to me that we should express thanks when appropriate as well. :-)
Thank you, BayLeaf.
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 4:52:55
In reply to Please be civil » BayLeaf, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 19, 2008, at 21:53:00
> > It is certainly worth the possibility of a block to do the right thing.
>
> Yes, everyone makes their choices, as each new situation dictates and according to their own conscience. I understand that.
>
> > What we saw was vile hate speech
>
> However, as Dr. Bob asks that the civility rules be applied to *all* posters, and the FAQ remind us "free speech is limited here," I'm going to ask you not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused and put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
>
> > We complain a lot here. It seems to me that we should express thanks when appropriate as well. :-)
>
> Thank you, BayLeaf.
>
> --10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. BobDeputy 10derHeart,
I am unsure as to your rationale for what you have posted here to Bayleaf.
You wrote to what Bayleaf posted in,[...to do the right thing...]
[[Yes...I understand that...]]
I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean that what BayLeaf posted is unacceptsble to you in relation to the guidlines of the forum or not and if it is not acceptab;e to you, could you post here a citation of the part of the TOS that BayLeaf's statement falls under to be unacceptable to you? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly, for it is unclear to me why you cited Bayleaf's statement when your subject line is concerning asking the member to be civil.
In Bayleaf's statement that is something like,[...What is seen...], you posted to Bayleaf's statement,[[...I'm going to ask you not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down...]].
I am unsure as to who the {others} could be in your statement here and what the criteria are that you used to write that the statemnt could lead another or others to feel accused or put down. Could you identify the {others}, and the criteria used, that are in your thinking by listing those here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of why you posted to the forum here your statement in question concerning that BayLeaf identified what she thinks could be seen. And if that is done here, then I could also try to determine as to if there is or is not a question in your mind as to if what BayLeaf posted as to what could be seen is self-evident to you or not and then respond accordingly as to why Bayleaf is told by you to not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 21, 2008, at 13:34:44
In reply to Lou's request for identification/rationale » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 4:52:55
Sorry if the format of my post was confusing, Lou.
This:
> What we saw was vile hate speech
is the portion I was indicating was uncivil. Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is generally considered uncivil.
Hope that clarifies things.
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
In reply to Re: Lou's request for identification/rationale » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 21, 2008, at 13:34:44
> Sorry if the format of my post was confusing, Lou.
>
> This:
>
> > What we saw was vile hate speech
>
> is the portion I was indicating was uncivil. Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is generally considered uncivil.
>
> Hope that clarifies things.
>
> -- 10derHeartDeputy 10derHeart,
You wrote,[...Any negative characterization of what a poster posts is...uncivil...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by {negative characterization} of what a poster posts here in relation to what BayLeaf posted as you cited.
The generally accepted meanings of {negative} and {characerization} are unknown to me as to how by stateing what one sees could fall into the catagory of being a {negative characterization} based upon my understanding of the grammatical structure of your statement.
If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
I am unsure as to what if Bayleaf prefaced the statement with {I believe} as to if then that would have been left without administrative sanction or not. If you could write here as to if that would be acceptable or not, then I could respond accordingly.
I am also unsure as to if BayLeaf posted the statement you cited in an article in a link, let's say from a group that Bayleaf belongs to, that wrote that the type of words used that Bayleaf identified are of the nature that Bayleaf identified as in what your sanction to Bayleaf includes, would then be also notated as being uncivil or not, or would you ask Bayleaf to revise the link which could mean that Bayleaf could repost something else in its place, while the link remained intact, and not be sanctioned as being asked to be civil. If you could write here as to if that could be acceptable or not, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
You were the first person to offer me a kind word when I first came here to Babble--I haven't forgotten that gesture. You have been scrutinized and blocked more and longer than anyone I've seen here. It must be near unbearable to live under such a microscope --walking on eggshells. I'm sorry for the way things have evolved here for you Lou. I have not consciously tried to encourage the current state of affairs here. In fact, I try to stay as nuetral as possible on Admin. I sure do wish you could speak your mind here. I've never been offended by anything you've said---but the world suffers from a host of maladies and people are not as free to give their opinions here as once existed. Bob Dylan was right when he proclaimed that the times were changing. I reckon it's the natural progression when you have a bunch of folks who suffer from being human--it's an often untreatable condition. My hat's off to you Lou. You've endured a lot and have,so far, managed to maintain your composure. I suppose that I'm trying to say , "Hang in there" in my own round about way--and I have faith that you will. Later friend...
Posted by Dena on November 21, 2008, at 22:40:58
In reply to Lou, posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
You have a good and gracious heart, Bobby.
Thanks for speaking out for Lou this way -- yes, Lou has given a lot of people many gifts.
May he find a way to share his heart, so that others can be blessed.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Justherself54 on November 22, 2008, at 12:41:47
In reply to Lou, posted by Bobby on November 21, 2008, at 21:16:09
That was a really nice post.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 22, 2008, at 22:52:49
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 21, 2008, at 17:38:44
>If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
1. It's uncivil at Psycho-Babble to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
2. Describing what I wrote in a post - *any* post - as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down. I don't believe "vile" is a positive, supportive adjective - see below.
Definitions of *vile* per M-W:
1 a: morally despicable or abhorrent
b: physically repulsive : foul
2: of little worth or account
3: tending to degrade
4: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious , contemptible
------------------------------
As for the rest, I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.Lou, I think it's probable I didn't answer your question(s), and possible you may have more questions. I'm sorry for my limitations, however, I don't know how to explain this admin action any further. Perhaps another poster, deputy or Dr. Bob can help.
Respectfully,
-- 10derHeart
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2008, at 7:55:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-negchar? » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on November 22, 2008, at 22:52:49
> >If you could explain here what you are wanting to mean by a negative characterization in as to how Bayleaf's statement of what she sees is doing anything as to characterizing what the member posted as {negative}, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if I was to know what you are wanting to mean here by {negative}.
>
> 1. It's uncivil at Psycho-Babble to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> 2. Describing what I wrote in a post - *any* post - as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down. I don't believe "vile" is a positive, supportive adjective - see below.
>
> Definitions of *vile* per M-W:
>
> 1 a: morally despicable or abhorrent
> b: physically repulsive : foul
> 2: of little worth or account
> 3: tending to degrade
> 4: disgustingly or utterly bad : obnoxious , contemptible
> ------------------------------
> As for the rest, I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.
>
> Lou, I think it's probable I didn't answer your question(s), and possible you may have more questions. I'm sorry for my limitations, however, I don't know how to explain this admin action any further. Perhaps another poster, deputy or Dr. Bob can help.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -- 10derHeartFriends,
The response from the administration here to me is one that I would like for the community to see from my perspective concerning how a Jew could see what was written to him as a reply to his concerns.
The understanding that I have concerning the deputy's reply to me is that it is my understanding that her reply to me is a reply that could be from all the administration, being Mr. Hsiung and the other deputies as well. I base that on that I have requested from Mr. Hsiung concerning responses to me from his deputies and from him as to how the ones not listed stood in relation to the reply.
Here is a link to a post to a thread that gives some clarification to that.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/705186.html
I ask; Is a reply to be considerd a reply from all of the administration? If so, if Mr. Hsiung or another deputy does not consider that the reply to me here from the deputy does reflect their thinking, I invite them, if there are any, to post here their postion if different.
In another aspect of the importance to me of this reply to me here from the deputy, I would like for those that are considering posting to this thread to examine the post and thread that is brought up and take that into consideration in any post that you may want to post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
Then there could be a question as to what is considered here to be an antisemitic post. Here is a link to a post and thread that I would like for you to examine if you are going to pst here to consider what is the definition of an anti-Semitic post.
http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
The deputy here writes to me,[...it's probable I didn't answer your question(s)..you may have more...I don't know how to explain this administrative action..another deputy, poster or (Mr. Hsiung) can...].
The invitation from the deputy also involves questions that the deputy thinks I could have, and I do. Before I post those here for members to consider posting their answers to if they would like, I am asking that others email me if they would like to have a better understanding of my perspective concerning this thread's aspects.
One question, though, is that I am asking you to examine the deputy's statement to me,[...describing what I wrote in a post-*any* post-as "vile" could make me feel both accused and put down...]
Now after reading that, I have the following questions that the deputy invites others to explain the administrative action taken, and if you are one wanting to accept that invitation, then,
A. Does the grammatical structure of the statement in question indicate, in your opiniion, that the statement in question that was sanctioned in Bayleaf's post in question indicate that it is the word used as an adjective that makes the statement uncivil and that the statement in question could be civil if the adjective in question was not used?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
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.