![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 172 to 196 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:25:47
In reply to Lou's request to Scott-muneecheynjurz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 6:45:03
I am acutely aware of this exchange, as I read the thread as it unfolded. I have always known that this post is the one you most often allude to in your petitions to administration.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
"What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God. Now if you don't believe we came from God in the first place, this isn't going to mean much to you."
In my estimation, the author of the above passage was probably more interested in saving you than in killing you. I do not see anti-semitism. I see pro-christianity. I refuse to get into a discussion here of how Western religions have used words to facilitate genocide.
How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
Would the words "I believe" have made this a civil statement?
Personally, I would have preferred that the post be rephrased to include "I believe", as this would have been more adherent to the posting preferences for the Faith forum as described by the administrator of this website. It wasn't. The original wording is not at all antisemitic. How an antisemite might use them is.
Remember. Circumcision...
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 8:45:25
In reply to I believe. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:25:47
> I am acutely aware of this exchange, as I read the thread as it unfolded. I have always known that this post is the one you most often allude to in your petitions to administration.
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
>
> "What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God. Now if you don't believe we came from God in the first place, this isn't going to mean much to you."
>
> In my estimation, the author of the above passage was probably more interested in saving you than in killing you. I do not see anti-semitism. I see pro-christianity. I refuse to get into a discussion here of how Western religions have used words to facilitate genocide.
>
> How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
>
> Would the words "I believe" have made this a civil statement?
>
> Personally, I would have preferred that the post be rephrased to include "I believe", as this would have been more adherent to the posting preferences for the Faith forum as described by the administrator of this website. It wasn't. The original wording is not at all antisemitic. How an antisemite might use them is.
>
> Remember. Circumcision...
>
>
> - Scott> Scott,
The rule here is to not put down those of other faiths. The rule is explained that when the use of an imperative is used, like {only}, then the imperative precludes all those that are not in the {only}. So readers see what is what it is. It says what it says. The statement means that Jews, Islamic people , Hindus and all those of other religions that are not in Christiandom, are not on the pathway that returns one to God.
The statement could be interpreted as an insult to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the rest that are not in the {only}. This could arouse anti-Semitic feelings because it can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as well as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. I do not think that having Jews and others depicted as such here as being good at all. But by the nature that it stands, readers could think that Judaism is a lesser religion that Christianity, which fits the generally accepted meaning of being put down.
So here we have a statement that puts down Jews, at least, which is agreed to be an anti-Semitic statement and it is allowed to stand.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:58:31
In reply to Lou's reply-ahntiepsemalowdtupstan » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 8:45:25
The ancient post you cite wasn't a put down of other faiths so much as it was a holding up of the one faith that the poster sincerely believed in. Are you any different, Lou? Why would you need to explain your beliefs regarding mental illness and drug usage using a Jewish perspective? Isn't that a put down of all other religions? Is Christianity inferior to Judiasm?
See how this works?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 9:23:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-ahntiepsemalowdtupstan » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:58:31
> The ancient post you cite wasn't a put down of other faiths so much as it was a holding up of the one faith that the poster sincerely believed in. Are you any different, Lou? Why would you need to explain your beliefs regarding mental illness and drug usage using a Jewish perspective? Isn't that a put down of all other religions? Is Christianity inferior to Judiasm?
>
> See how this works?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I am prohibited by the rules of Mr Hsiung from posting what is in [ admin,7968 ]. I am abiding by that prohibition to me here, so I do not post it or anything that could be analogous to it. There is a prohibition also that states not to post what could put down those of other faiths, so I do not post what could do that. If I do post from a Jewish perspective here, I honor the prohibitions to me by Mr Hsiung and do not post what could put down those of other faiths. What is happening here is that the posts that could put down those of other faiths that could include Judaism are the ones that I am objecting to being allowed to stand.
The rule here is not to allow statements that could put down those of other faiths even if one believes them. The rule is to not post what is not supportive because support takes precedence. Precedence over belief, precedence even if it is in the Bible, precedence even if one thinks it is true. I am abiding by that rule and I think that Mr Hsiung has a duty to stop others that do not abide by that rule, for by allowing posts that put down Jews, at least, could IMHO induce hostile opinions and feelings against Jews because readers could think that anti-Semitic statements are supportive here. And readers could think that if anti-Semitic statements are supportive by a psychiatrist that chairs this forum, they could also think that anti-Semitic statements could be supportive in the community that they are in. This IMHO could lead to Jews becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 15, 2013, at 13:28:48
In reply to Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 8:58:33
> I believe it is a stereotype that Jews constantly cry antisemitism where none exists.
I hadn't been aware of that stereotype, and Lou is actually the only one I'm aware of doing it.
But then I've always understood that well less than a hundred years ago, something so monstrous happened that it would be perfectly normal and understandable to feel defensive. I haven't noticed any excess concern elsewhere.
I'm still rather bitter about the extermination order signed against Mormons, and my great-greats being chased out of wherever they were, and my grandparents being delegitamized when Utah joined the United States. And what Mormons suffered was so much less, and longer ago.
I sincerely hope that this is a more reasonable time. Yet even so, I never came so near to returning to the Mormon church than during the campaign of Mitt Romney and all the disrespectful jokes about magic underwear. And I always speak up in church when I hear anything insensitive about Judaism. In fact, I'm looking into the Noahide covenant and am rather excited about it.
So I very much understand being sensitive to anti-semetism. But I can't think it's conducive to positive feelings towards Jews to be constantly accused of hating them. Lou may only be one person, but his accusations take up a fair amount of space on Babble and are hard to ignore.
That quite apart from the fact that Dr. Bob doesn't remove posts, and has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived.
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 17:56:43
In reply to Re: Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 15, 2013, at 13:28:48
> I hadn't been aware of that stereotype,
Yup.
https://www.google.com/#q=antisemitism+cry+wolf
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 19:01:39
In reply to Re: Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 15, 2013, at 13:28:48
> That quite apart from the fact that Dr. Bob doesn't remove posts, and has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived.
What do you think, Lou? Game over?
You win some, you lose some. It doesn't matter how many times you may ask for it to be sanctioned, the post you object to will stand. You lose. Of course, the moderator may change his posting policies such that you win. In any event, I think it is time to move on. I can't think of anything else that I would wish to say.
Antisemitism is hideous, and has, throughout history, led to the deaths of Jews. It is good that you are vigilant in protecting Jews from antisemitism. I would suggest that you perhaps evaluate your current strategies and consider trying something different.
Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?
One?
I believe that I have demonstrated that a reasonable person (or forum) could read the post you cite and not see antisemitism.
I see that you have now returned to posting on the Medication board. I will be interested to discover what, if any, uncivil posts you are cited for by the moderator of this forum. I think that we could all use a review of posting rules, particularly those that involve exaggerations, overgeneralizations, accusations, and other verbiage that had, in the past, been judged to be uncivil by the moderator.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on October 15, 2013, at 19:01:50
In reply to Re: Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 17:56:43
From all the compliments I get on my Trek yellow bike I do think it's better than anyone else's but I am willing to look at yours. As many bikes are nice and who knows one could be better than mine. But it's okay. I can accept this. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 20:37:49
In reply to Re: Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 15, 2013, at 13:28:48
> > I believe it is a stereotype that Jews constantly cry antisemitism where none exists.
>
> I hadn't been aware of that stereotype, and Lou is actually the only one I'm aware of doing it.
>
> But then I've always understood that well less than a hundred years ago, something so monstrous happened that it would be perfectly normal and understandable to feel defensive. I haven't noticed any excess concern elsewhere.
>
> I'm still rather bitter about the extermination order signed against Mormons, and my great-greats being chased out of wherever they were, and my grandparents being delegitamized when Utah joined the United States. And what Mormons suffered was so much less, and longer ago.
>
> I sincerely hope that this is a more reasonable time. Yet even so, I never came so near to returning to the Mormon church than during the campaign of Mitt Romney and all the disrespectful jokes about magic underwear. And I always speak up in church when I hear anything insensitive about Judaism. In fact, I'm looking into the Noahide covenant and am rather excited about it.
>
> So I very much understand being sensitive to anti-semetism. But I can't think it's conducive to positive feelings towards Jews to be constantly accused of hating them. Lou may only be one person, but his accusations take up a fair amount of space on Babble and are hard to ignore.
>
> That quite apart from the fact that Dr. Bob doesn't remove posts, and has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived.Friends,
It is written here,[...the fact that (Mr. Hsiung)...has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived...]
Let us look at this post where Mr. Hsiung reversed himself and agreed with me. There was that post as follows that was posted in that thread in the archives. Any statement by Mr. Hsiung to allow readers to see that what is in question is against the rules here is all I ask from him. So Mr . Hsiung does not have a policy that he will not revisit a post in the archives at all. In fact, there was one by {fuzzymind} that I remember where Mr Hsiung actually posted a sanction many days after it was first posted.
Lou
[ admin, 1050578 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 21:15:51
In reply to Lou Pilder: Game over?, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 19:01:39
> > That quite apart from the fact that Dr. Bob doesn't remove posts, and has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived.
>
> What do you think, Lou? Game over?
>
> You win some, you lose some. It doesn't matter how many times you may ask for it to be sanctioned, the post you object to will stand. You lose. Of course, the moderator may change his posting policies such that you win. In any event, I think it is time to move on. I can't think of anything else that I would wish to say.
>
> Antisemitism is hideous, and has, throughout history, led to the deaths of Jews. It is good that you are vigilant in protecting Jews from antisemitism. I would suggest that you perhaps evaluate your current strategies and consider trying something different.
>
> Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?
>
> One?
>
> I believe that I have demonstrated that a reasonable person (or forum) could read the post you cite and not see antisemitism.
>
> I see that you have now returned to posting on the Medication board. I will be interested to discover what, if any, uncivil posts you are cited for by the moderator of this forum. I think that we could all use a review of posting rules, particularly those that involve exaggerations, overgeneralizations, accusations, and other verbiage that had, in the past, been judged to be uncivil by the moderator.
>
>
> - Scott
> Scott,
You said that there was only one post that was anti-Semitic. Which one was that?
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 22:00:49
In reply to Lou's request-rvrihneegip » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 21:15:51
> You said that there was only one post that was anti-Semitic. Which one was that?
Nice try.
This is what I said:
"Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?"
Since you are so focused on the historical record and the forum archives, you might want to finally reflect on the words of others before repeating arguments on an issue that has already been resolved.
Turn out the lights, the party's over.
You have nowhere left to go.
I know you need something as a replacement project now that we have resolved your issue with a post describing Christianity. You might want to read or reread a book on organic chemistry and focus first on the chemistry of benzene and aromatic benzene rings. I think you can afford to be better informed in this area before opining on the safety of drugs.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 5:50:44
In reply to My exact words - The party's over. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 22:00:49
> > You said that there was only one post that was anti-Semitic. Which one was that?
>
> Nice try.
>
> This is what I said:
>
> "Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?"
>
> Since you are so focused on the historical record and the forum archives, you might want to finally reflect on the words of others before repeating arguments on an issue that has already been resolved.
>
> Turn out the lights, the party's over.
>
> You have nowhere left to go.
>
> I know you need something as a replacement project now that we have resolved your issue with a post describing Christianity. You might want to read or reread a book on organic chemistry and focus first on the chemistry of benzene and aromatic benzene rings. I think you can afford to be better informed in this area before opining on the safety of drugs.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
Which one was that?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 6:19:55
In reply to My exact words - The party's over. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 22:00:49
> > You said that there was only one post that was anti-Semitic. Which one was that?
>
> Nice try.
>
> This is what I said:
>
> "Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?"
>
> Since you are so focused on the historical record and the forum archives, you might want to finally reflect on the words of others before repeating arguments on an issue that has already been resolved.
>
> Turn out the lights, the party's over.
>
> You have nowhere left to go.
>
> I know you need something as a replacement project now that we have resolved your issue with a post describing Christianity. You might want to read or reread a book on organic chemistry and focus first on the chemistry of benzene and aromatic benzene rings. I think you can afford to be better informed in this area before opining on the safety of drugs.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here about the chemistry of benzene. Benzene is in many psychiatric drugs and I have studied it greatly. It is a chemical that has been used in the commission of mass-murder. I am prevented from posting here what I think could save your life, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. BUt you could read the following and have more education concerning benzene and when someone tells you otherwise, you could have my input here to know more.
Lou
here are just two links that I think could help you in understanding benzene in psychotropic drugs. There is much more and I am prevented from posting that here. I am so sorry my friends.
http://www.benzenecausescancer.info/home/benzene-in-medicine
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53192
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 7:37:52
In reply to Re: Crying antisemitism where none exists. Disharmony » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 15, 2013, at 13:28:48
> > I believe it is a stereotype that Jews constantly cry antisemitism where none exists.
>
> I hadn't been aware of that stereotype, and Lou is actually the only one I'm aware of doing it.
>
> But then I've always understood that well less than a hundred years ago, something so monstrous happened that it would be perfectly normal and understandable to feel defensive. I haven't noticed any excess concern elsewhere.
>
> I'm still rather bitter about the extermination order signed against Mormons, and my great-greats being chased out of wherever they were, and my grandparents being delegitamized when Utah joined the United States. And what Mormons suffered was so much less, and longer ago.
>
> I sincerely hope that this is a more reasonable time. Yet even so, I never came so near to returning to the Mormon church than during the campaign of Mitt Romney and all the disrespectful jokes about magic underwear. And I always speak up in church when I hear anything insensitive about Judaism. In fact, I'm looking into the Noahide covenant and am rather excited about it.
>
> So I very much understand being sensitive to anti-semetism. But I can't think it's conducive to positive feelings towards Jews to be constantly accused of hating them. Lou may only be one person, but his accusations take up a fair amount of space on Babble and are hard to ignore.
>
> That quite apart from the fact that Dr. Bob doesn't remove posts, and has a policy against sanctioning posts that are archived.D,
You wrote, [...be constantly accused of hating them (the Jews)...his accusations...]
I am unsure as to what posts contain from me the accusations that you are referring to. If you could post a link to one of those posts of mine here, then I could have the opportunity to respond to you.
Be advised that what you have posted about me here could induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. This is because I am trying to purge statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and are according to Mr. Hsiung against the rules to post here because those posts that are in consideration in my discussion with Mr Hsiung here can be seen as {putting down} Jews which Mr Hsiung agrees is an anti-Semitic statement. I am following the rules here to what is humanly possible to have these posts in question notated as against the rules here and there has been one attended to so far by Mr. Hsiung where he reversed his thinking on his own rules and agreed with me that the post could put down Jews and others. I do not consider a discussion about posts that could put down Jews that I want purged from here to constitute anything like constantly accusing anyone of hating Jews. Agreed, those statements in discussion could cause hatred toward the Jews and that is why I am continuing to attempt to have them purged from here. And why would anyone want them to stand?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 7:54:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response-428781 » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2013, at 21:28:26
> No
Phillipa,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. What is your rationale for posting "No" here? If you could post that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 16, 2013, at 8:05:56
In reply to Lou's request-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 6:19:55
Dear Lou,
I forgot to mention that I still like you.
I get frustrated and angry with some of your posting content - and that leaves us as being intellectual adversaries - but these are issues I have with your words, and not with your mind and heart. You are a good person. I don't see that changing. Perhaps you and I can become better people still. I know that I have much to improve upon. However, I have the rest of my life to effect change and create my own happiness and perhaps contribute to the happiness of others. This will take work, and I have already begun my project of self-improvement. But for today, I will try to remain grounded in the here and now.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 16, 2013, at 8:36:36
In reply to Lou's request-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 6:19:55
Perhaps you can begin a discussion on the Medication forum regarding the differences between molecular benzene and compounds that contain benzene rings. I don't think the Administration forum is the most appropriate for, nor conducive to, such a discussion. Of course, it is Dr. Bob who will judge the desirability of redirecting these posts.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 8:42:12
In reply to My exact words - The party's over. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 22:00:49
> > You said that there was only one post that was anti-Semitic. Which one was that?
>
> Nice try.
>
> This is what I said:
>
> "Out of all the thousands of posts that are extant and archived on Psycho-Babble that you can parse in your surveillance for antisemitic content, you could only find one for consideration?"
>
> Since you are so focused on the historical record and the forum archives, you might want to finally reflect on the words of others before repeating arguments on an issue that has already been resolved.
>
> Turn out the lights, the party's over.
>
> You have nowhere left to go.
>
> I know you need something as a replacement project now that we have resolved your issue with a post describing Christianity. You might want to read or reread a book on organic chemistry and focus first on the chemistry of benzene and aromatic benzene rings. I think you can afford to be better informed in this area before opining on the safety of drugs.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here that I could only find one post here that is in consideration as being anti-Semitic.
This could put me in a false light and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me because there are many, many posts that I am offering Mr. Hsiung for consideration to purge the statement as that it could put down, at least, Jews and is an anti-Semitic statement according to the rules here. This is not a one-post issue at all, as I think that thereis the potential for some readers to think that after reading the post directed at me here that I am responding to, and I think that by me being put on a false light of offering Mr Hsiung just one post for consideration could harm my reputation and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held.
Here is a partial list of posts that have content that could be considered to be putting down Jews that I am bringing to discussion here for consideration by Mr Hsiung to reverse his thinking and purge the statement as against the rules by him. He has done so already and I am continuing to go on with him in this discussion in this thread.
Now here is a way to see some of the posts that I intend to present to Mr Hsiung in this discussion one post at a time. There are more after these and more than one already in discussion for Mr Hsiung's consideration in this thread. See[ admin, 1042501 ]for what is coming and some that have already been offered to Mr Hsiung by me for his consideration.
If anyone is led to think that there I have only one post here in consideration by me and Mr Hsiung in this discussion, be advised that the rules here are not to post anything that could put down or accuse another and not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. And one that you might not know of is to not post a link to what has anti-Semitic content in it. To see that post by Mr Hsiung go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ admin, 5164 ]
Now to see,[...do not post to anti-Semitic sites, period...] go to the middle or so of the page that comes up under [admin, 5164 ] and see that the statement starts with
[Are you saying that diatribes by David Duke...]
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 16, 2013, at 9:08:11
In reply to Lou's response-phalzlyt » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 8:42:12
> It is written here that I could only find one post here that is in consideration as being anti-Semitic
Would it be more accurate to say that the majority of posts that you have submitted regarding antisemitism are related to a single phrase to be found in the Christian New Testament?
Yes or No?
-------------------------------------------------------
King James Bible
John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes or No?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 9:20:11
In reply to Yes or No? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 16, 2013, at 9:08:11
> > It is written here that I could only find one post here that is in consideration as being anti-Semitic
>
> Would it be more accurate to say that the majority of posts that you have submitted regarding antisemitism are related to a single phrase to be found in the Christian New Testament?
>
> Yes or No?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> King James Bible
>
> John 14:6
>
> "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes or No?
>
>
> - ScottScott et al,
No.
Let us look at this post about the Jews by going to the search box and typing in:
[ admin, 428781 ]
You may need to scroll down and find the 428781 in the colored strip url
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 9:22:52
In reply to Lou's reply-428781 » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 9:20:11
> > > It is written here that I could only find one post here that is in consideration as being anti-Semitic
> >
> > Would it be more accurate to say that the majority of posts that you have submitted regarding antisemitism are related to a single phrase to be found in the Christian New Testament?
> >
> > Yes or No?
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > King James Bible
> >
> > John 14:6
> >
> > "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Yes or No?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott et al,
> No.
> Let us look at this post about the Jews by going to the search box and typing in:
> [ admin, 428781 ]
> You may need to scroll down and find the 428781 in the colored strip url
> LouFriends,
The post does come up first. I would like you to know that the rule here is to not post a link to what has anti-Semitic content.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2013, at 10:52:19
In reply to Lou's request-ihndu » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 7:37:52
Your distinctions are not ones I see. I see no difference between stating that a poster has posted anti-semitic statements and accusing a poster of anti-semetism. At the very least you are accusing posters of posting antisemitic statements. Which I don't find particularly conducive to positive feelings.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 12:29:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ihndu » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2013, at 10:52:19
> Your distinctions are not ones I see. I see no difference between stating that a poster has posted anti-semitic statements and accusing a poster of anti-semetism. At the very least you are accusing posters of posting antisemitic statements. Which I don't find particularly conducive to positive feelings.
D,
I see a difference between one posting a statement that could put down Jews and determining if the poster of such is anti-Semitic.
If a statement is posted that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, it could also put down Jews. The rule here is that one is not to post what could put down those of other faiths. An anti-Semitic statement could put down Jews.
But is the person that posts such anti-Semitic? That could be a different. You see, I can not look into a person's heart to determine if they hate Jews and posted the anti-Semitic statement of of malice toward Jews to arouse hatred toward them. That could be determined by having more information than just the one post that puts down Jews. There is a test for that, though.
Here we are in discussion with Mr Hsiung to purge statements that are anti-Semitic. So I use the rule here that an anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews. And the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths and the rule to not post a link that has anti-Semitic content. We are not in discussion as to if or if not the poster of such is anti-Semitic.
Now if a post has an anti-Semitic statement, which means it puts down Jews, it is what it is. Does one have to guess at a statement that puts down Jews as to if it does or does not? They usually are plainly visible. The question here is why are they allowed to stand when the rule is that anti-Semitic statements are those that put down Jews and the rule is to not post what could put down those of other faiths? And why would anyone want those type of statements to stand here as acceptable?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 16, 2013, at 20:14:38
In reply to Lou's reply-heytizakseptuhbul » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2013, at 12:29:17
This could go on for almost ever but then who knows how long ever is? So I see no resolution. I for one don't care if one worships a piece of bread or a rock. Stalemate. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2013, at 8:38:50
In reply to Re: No resolution, posted by Phillipa on October 16, 2013, at 20:14:38
> This could go on for almost ever but then who knows how long ever is? So I see no resolution. I for one don't care if one worships a piece of bread or a rock. Stalemate. Phillipa
Friends,
It is written above about the discussion between me and Mr. Hsiung.
Here is where we left off. Notice what is contained in the post by me to Mr. Hsiung.There could be a resolution if my requests were responded to?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1052184.html
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.