![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 74 to 98 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
In reply to Lou's reply-Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozdur, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2013, at 19:04:06
> Now here is another.
> I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.htmlThat one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 0:23:51
> > Now here is another.
> > I am aking that you declare as to if the following is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community or supportive or acceptable or a combination of those or something else. I also would like for you to post your rationale for such.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048571.html
>
> That one I'd consider more OK than not. It would've been more civil if he'd just specified posting behaviors. But still it might have been easy to figure out he had you in mind.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I had requested that you state as to if the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, or supportive, or acceptable or a combination of those or something else.
Your answer is that [...That one I'd consider more OK than not...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond to you accordingly.
You are wanting your answer to mean as acceptable to post, and:
A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
B. That the statement in question is supportive, and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
C. The statement in question is supportive, but not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
D. The statement in question is not supportive, nor conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
E. none of the above.
F. A combination f the above which are:
G. All of the above
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-svellsup » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2013, at 16:28:52
> A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2013, at 23:38:52
> > A. That the statement in question is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
>
> because discussion of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community.
>
> Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that [...discussions of posting policies is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community...]. A policy is what guides others in relation to what they post so that they can be within the guidelines of the [policy when they post in the future.
I would agree that to discuss the *policy* here is one thing, and to bring me up as suggesting that they think that I should be ostracized if I continue in posting what I have been posting, is another thing.
And I have the following question so that if the are answered, I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean here and respond accordingly.
A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
Lou Pilder
>
>
>
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
The post I wrote was intended to be a figure of speech reflecting my anger and frustration with your suggestion that you have a better idea of how I should treat my bipolar disorder than I do. Nonetheless, the way I expressed it was inappropriate and probably should have been sanctioned. I'm sorry Lou. It would be nice also if you felt some remorse for provoking me, but that's OK if you can't.
Posted by 10derheart on September 30, 2013, at 18:18:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
What a decent and nice post, Toph. I am not surprised, of course.
If I were British and of another era, I would say I always think of you as a good egg :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 1:32:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2013, at 7:36:18
> A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2013, at 21:01:56
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung and readers,
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
In reply to Re: what makes posting on Admin hard, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2013, at 2:31:30
> > A. Can one post what could lead someone to feel accused or put down when they are posting about the policy here?
> > B. Could they also post what could lead others to think of a poster that is the subject of the post in a false light?
> > C. Could they post about another that could have the potential to have some others consider that what is written about that poster could constitute ridicule and/or contempt against that person?
>
> That's what makes posting on Admin hard. If discussion about what's right (legal, moral, virtuous, civil) is allowed, those who might be considered wrong (illegal, immoral, sinful, uncivil) could feel accused or put down.
>
> Like if you advocate receiving a new mind, those who prefer to work on the mind they have could feel accused or put down.
>
> My sense is that the potential benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms -- if the potential harms are minimized.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Can all posters post what is analogous that is in question here? (...I think Lou...should be...)
B. If so, and you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
C. Why is the statement in question,{I think Lou should be) a topic for discussion at all, if my reputation could be harmed and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings and opinions against me?
D. What benefit comes to this community by allowing that?
E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
G. There is the potential IMHO for a subset of readers to think when they read the post in question about me here that the posting behaviors by me are those that are of the nature of my efforts here to get the posts that I think could arouse, in particular but not limited to, anti-Semitic feelings, and could lead Jews to feel put down and/or accused, to be addressed by you along with the years of outstanding requests/notification from me to you be acted on.
Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
The potential of the post being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here, which could encourage others to post the same type of statements about me, I can see no benefit coming to me from that being allowed to continue at all. Who are the subset of people, if any, that you think will benefit by seeing the post about me as acceptable to be posted here which has the potential IMO to inflict psychological and emotional harm to me?
Lou Pilder
Posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
In reply to Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2013, at 11:29:03
Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2013, at 4:13:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> I believe that you could revitalize the site
If a single person can revitalize the site, can a single person devitalize it?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 5:35:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)Pat,
You wrote,[...I have never seen a post that would be against your heritage or religion...]
Let us look at this post that Mr Hsiung says is OK to post here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Now the post says that in the top 10 worst reason for organized religion as in #5 in the second list in the post, is a religion that fosters an agenda not centered in Christ.
Now That would include Judaism. And what could be thought here is that this community, by accepting that statement as acceptable to post here by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, Judaism, which includes me as a Jew, is a religion that is in the worst, and that those religions centered in Christ are not in the category of worst. So the thinking could be when readers see that post, that {only} the religion of Christiandom is exempt from being in the category of the "worst".
Now the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious agenda centered in Christ, and Buddhists and all other religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, to feel insulted when they read it, and that this community allows that statement to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, for the statement stands without sanction. And Mr. Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out a fire here for one match could start a forest fire.
The question by you is that you have never seen a post here that is against Judaism. The post in question states that there are religions that are the worst, and Judaism is included. But it is much more than that. The insult that relegates Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious ageda centered in Christ, and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, can be seen to be divided by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies that have allowed this statement for years, into two groups of members here. One group contains all those that have their religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ ,and the other group that are Christians. The community leader, Mr Hsiung, says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. So by allowing the statement to be seen s supportive, there is the potential for readers to think that Jews are to be considered by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, to be in the worst of religions, which includes this Jew here. By allowing the statement in question, all Jews an be seen here as in the worst religion. And all Islamic people also. And all Hindu people also. And all native Americans also that do not have their religion centered in Christ. And all people that are not members of Christiandom, for if they did have their agenda centered in Christ, they would be members of Christiandom.
The statement seen as supportive here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence of me as a Jew here and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against Jews and me as a Jew here. This could play out in using me as a scapegoat and I could become a victim of anti-Semitic violence as the historical record shows.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 19:23:57
In reply to Lou's reply- ewschd » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 5:35:40
> > Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> > I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> > Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> > I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> > You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> > I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> > Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> > I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> > I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> > There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)
>
> Pat,
> You wrote,[...I have never seen a post that would be against your heritage or religion...]
> Let us look at this post that Mr Hsiung says is OK to post here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> Now the post says that in the top 10 worst reason for organized religion as in #5 in the second list in the post, is a religion that fosters an agenda not centered in Christ.
> Now That would include Judaism. And what could be thought here is that this community, by accepting that statement as acceptable to post here by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, Judaism, which includes me as a Jew, is a religion that is in the worst, and that those religions centered in Christ are not in the category of worst. So the thinking could be when readers see that post, that {only} the religion of Christiandom is exempt from being in the category of the "worst".
> Now the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious agenda centered in Christ, and Buddhists and all other religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, to feel insulted when they read it, and that this community allows that statement to be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, for the statement stands without sanction. And Mr. Hsiung states that he does not wait to put out a fire here for one match could start a forest fire.
> The question by you is that you have never seen a post here that is against Judaism. The post in question states that there are religions that are the worst, and Judaism is included. But it is much more than that. The insult that relegates Jews and Islamic people and Hindus and native Americans that do not have their religious ageda centered in Christ, and all others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, can be seen to be divided by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies that have allowed this statement for years, into two groups of members here. One group contains all those that have their religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ ,and the other group that are Christians. The community leader, Mr Hsiung, says that he does what will be good for this community as a whole. So by allowing the statement to be seen s supportive, there is the potential for readers to think that Jews are to be considered by Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies, to be in the worst of religions, which includes this Jew here. By allowing the statement in question, all Jews an be seen here as in the worst religion. And all Islamic people also. And all Hindu people also. And all native Americans also that do not have their religion centered in Christ. And all people that are not members of Christiandom, for if they did have their agenda centered in Christ, they would be members of Christiandom.
> The statement seen as supportive here could decrease the respect, regard and confidence of me as a Jew here and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions against Jews and me as a Jew here. This could play out in using me as a scapegoat and I could become a victim of anti-Semitic violence as the historical record shows.
> LouPat,
You wrote that you have never seen a post that...
Here is an assembly of posts that I would like for you to read.
Lou
To see the link, go to the search box at the bottom of the page and type in:
[ admin,1042501 ] and see the 1042501 in the colored strip, not the subject line.
Posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
In reply to Lou's reply- owebhulschd, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2013, at 19:23:57
Lou you and I have also emailed and you are always coherent and usually have a specific request for me to post a reply to a post of yours. But is it possible I have to wonder if you could brain wash me into being Anti Semetic with you constant it seems posting. Is it me or could there be something to you not being comfortable with your religion? I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- owebhulschd » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2013, at 20:49:05
> B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
> E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
--
> Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
>
> Lou Pilder> I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
>
> PhillipaOne fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 15:12:40
In reply to Re: the fire of hate, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
> > B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
>
> The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
>
> > E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> > F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
>
> No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
>
> --
>
> > Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
> >
> > Phillipa
>
> One fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
I am asking that we continue our discussion here. I see that your post here is a response to a post by Phillipa. And yet, there is a citation of a post by me that comes from another thread..
My concern here is that since you cited my post, I would like to have the whole post addressed..
But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
Be advised that I do not think that your rules can be drafted to allow that here in many jurisdictions, even if it could lead to a discussion that could make a better rule. That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
I am afraid that your post to Phillipa could mislead people into thinking that statements that could arouse hatred toward the Jews could have some protection from you by those statements being couched in a particular stratagem. I would like to clear this up, so here are the questions from me that I think if that you answered them, lives could be saved, Jews could have equal status here if the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings are addressed in our discussion. There has already been one fire stopped, and I want all of the flames of hate put out here, not just that one. The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning. And I see that some readers can see it as still hurning because it is left unsanctioned and readers could know that support takes precedence and they could think that it is supportive to have all religions considered to be in a category of the worst religions because their agenda is not centered in Christ, which make Christiandom the only religion that is not in the worst. You saying that another post by her is involved, but I see not, and that it does not annul the fact of what the statement in question purports, for the other statement is anther one of the top ten worst, so that statement is another question that could be addressed by you also if you post in the thread where the statements in question are..
But here is the post where I would like for you to answer now, so that any misunderstanding of your post to your response to Phillipa could have greater understanding.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1051577.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
In reply to Re: the fire of hate, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2013, at 12:36:23
> > B. you say that the benefits of having such discussions could outweigh the potential harms if minimized, what could a benefit be?
>
> The benefit could be improved rules, or improved understanding of the rules.
>
> > E. Would you agree that the past practice here is that posts on the admin board have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the boards and that posts are to be civil at all times?
> > F. In your TOS, it states not to post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down. Is there something in your TOS that lists exceptions to your rule here? If so, where is it?
>
> No, that hasn't been the past practice. The introductions to the other boards all say they're for "support". The introduction here just says it's for "discussion". On Admin, civility is still important, but there are also other goals, so sometimes there needs to be compromise.
>
> --
>
> > Those post IMHO could ignite the fire of hate and spread just like you say unless they are put out when they are just a spark. To allow anyone to brig me up here in the manner as can be seen IMHO could stoke the furnace of hatred toward all Jews, for the posting behavior is not specified.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have a feeling as a child someone said or did something to you. Of course I'm wrong but I'm just writing a feeling post. No facts here at all.
> >
> > Phillipa
>
> One fact is that millions of Jews have in the past been murdered. I've been thinking about how people exposed to trauma can have negative emotions and expectations afterward. What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Could {they} also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?...]
The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
It is plainly visible here that you have posted over and over that harm could come to one here when statements are posted that could lead one to feel accused and/or put down. But it is a greater (redacted by respondent) when one that has such rules and knows of the consequences to others that could happen to them when they are the subject of ridicule and contempt, to (redacted by respondent).
You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
>>I am not hypervigilant.
Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on October 4, 2013, at 18:17:18
> >>I am not hypervigilant.
>
> Hmm...are you introspective, do you think, Lou?
>
> I know sometimes I am a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all.10,
You wrote, [...are you introspective...].
I am unsure as to if what you have posted here is relevant to this discussion. If it is, what is the relevance?
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on October 5, 2013, at 13:04:22
In reply to Lou's reply-relvnz » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 5:00:29
Never mind, Lou. If you are asking me that, I don't think *my* further explanation would help.
IOW, your question may answer my question.
Anyway, glad to see you and Dr. Bob having a discussion.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
In reply to Lou's response-contmprhidkl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 4, 2013, at 17:37:36
> But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
Yes, and yes.
> The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
--
> That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
>
> The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
--
> Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:25:46
> > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
>
> What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
>
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> --
>
> > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
>
> > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> >
> > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
>
> That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
>
> --
>
> > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
>
> Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
Lou Pilder
To see this
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 20:18:33
In reply to Lou's reply- LDS-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2013, at 17:16:24
> > > But be it as it may be, you have posted that a benefit could come about of something here that I am concerned about, but there is not a citation as to which concern it is. You say that the benefit could be improved rules. Could that criteria trump what is posted if what is posted could put down or accuse another? This could have the potential for a subset of readers here IMHO to think that any post in question that could not be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the group, that you could say it is acceptable if a better rule will come from a discussion of a post that raises what is not supportive for discussion, even if is accuses or puts down the person in question?
> >
> > Yes, and yes.
> >
> > > The one that we are working on here is [..the top ten worst reasons...] that could stoke the furnace of hate as long as it is still burning.
> >
> > What if she had posted something more parallel to her #7, for example:
> >
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > --
> >
> > > That type of discussion could be made without a subject person,including me. And the rule here is to be civil at all times. That the admin forum is for discussion is true. But it is for discussion of the administarton of the site, not any one person or group of people.
> >
> > > > What about someone who wasn't exposed to trauma themselves, but whose people were? Could they also be hypervigilant, irritable, self-destructive, etc.?
> > >
> > > The context could lead readers to think that I am a subject person in your post.
> >
> > That's an example of how posting without a subject person doesn't necessarily keep people from thinking they might be the subject person.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > Your description of me that readers could get is something that is humiliating to me as I am feeling from reading what you have posted that readers could think is about me here. And your statement that could be thought to be about me could harm my reputation, decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile, disparaging and disagreeable feelings against me. I am not what you have posted here. I am not hypervigilant, I am not irritable, I am not self-destructive.
> > > You say you do what will be good for this community as a whole. And you can steer readers to go your way by controlling the content as to what is acceptable or not. What you have written about me here is not acceptable to me.
> >
> > Thank you for being willing to engage with me in this discussion. That was a general thought I had. I'm not saying it applies to you. I accept that applying it to you isn't acceptable to you. Let's say it did apply to someone else, Poster X. The idea would be that X belonged to a community that was traumatized, that X was traumatized indirectly. It can feel humiliating to be seen as the victim of trauma. Who wants to be seen as a victim? Still, being seen as a victim doesn't necessarily harm the reputation of X or induce hostile feelings against them. Especially here. Here, it could induce empathy, tolerance, and support. Which would be good for the community as a whole.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> You wrote about {what if} the statement that says that the religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ are in the category of the "worst" , had something added to it.
> Before I go into that reasoning, I would like for you and others following this discussion to read the following.
> Now those that are ignorant of the teachings of the latter day saints, aka Mormons, or LDS, could have a better understanding of this mater if they read what I am going to offer here. Then I will post what could open this up to those that are ignorant of their teachings and how those teachings are involved in this discussion of the statement ,[...the top 10 WORST...]. This could help those ignorant of the LDS teachings to understand what {other scriptures} are. Those are The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the book of Mormon. They contain other books like Nephi and such.
> You see, the statement in #5 is Mormon Doctrine and there is more...
> Lou Pilder
> To see this
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [Worst,as written in official Mormon scripture,Jouhn D. Stone]Now the statement in #5 says that one of the top ten worst reasons for a religion is to have an agenda not centered in Christ.
If that is allowed to be seen here as civil and supportive, then all religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ (redacted by respondent).
I would like reads to see this: To see this, pull up Google and type in:
[The On Tr Church, Boyd K. Packer]
You will see his pic also in the url there is {general-conference}
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 6, 2013, at 7:19:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-rhdcon » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2013, at 15:41:07
> The post I wrote was intended to be a figure of speech reflecting my anger and frustration with your suggestion that you have a better idea of how I should treat my bipolar disorder than I do. Nonetheless, the way I expressed it was inappropriate and probably should have been sanctioned. I'm sorry Lou. It would be nice also if you felt some remorse for provoking me, but that's OK if you can't.
Toph,
You wrote,[...your suggestion that you have a better idea...].
I would like to have discussion with you concerning this, but I would need to know where that came from. If you could post a link to where I stated something that says that, then I could continue here...
Lou
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.