![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 70. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SLS on October 24, 2011, at 6:14:41
Is it possible to present usage statistics graphically so that one can get an idea of posting activity throughout the last 3-4 years? If not graphically, then perhaps create a table with numbers? It would be interesting to see how the volume of posts coincides with administrative interventions and the density of postings on the Administration board.
It seems to me that very few of the many regular posters who left Psycho-Babble because of an escalation in administrative interventiona have returned. Although the current rate of attrition is markedly reduced ever since these administrative involvements have all but ceased, those whom left have not returned. The damage done to the posting community by the administration is irrevocable. For the most part, the rehabilitation of Psycho-Babble will take time.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 16:07:39
In reply to Posting Activity Statistics, posted by SLS on October 24, 2011, at 6:14:41
> Is it possible to present usage statistics graphically so that one can get an idea of posting activity throughout the last 3-4 years? If not graphically, then perhaps create a table with numbers? It would be interesting to see how the volume of posts coincides with administrative interventions and the density of postings on the Administration board.
>
> It seems to me that very few of the many regular posters who left Psycho-Babble because of an escalation in administrative interventiona have returned. Although the current rate of attrition is markedly reduced ever since these administrative involvements have all but ceased, those whom left have not returned. The damage done to the posting community by the administration is irrevocable. For the most part, the rehabilitation of Psycho-Babble will take time.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...The damage done to the posting community by the adminstration is irrevocable...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by thta. If you could post answers to the following , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Are all the members damaged? If not, which ones are or are not?
B. What is the damage, if any?
C. Are the former deputies part of those that caused the alledged damage?
D. Did you have any part in assisting the administartion in what they did that could have caused the alledged damage?
E. Why is the alledged damage irrevocable?
G. In your opinion, if Mr. Hsiung posted responses here to my outstanding requests, could that be part of any restoration of the community, if the community needs to be restored?
H. In your opinion, could Jews be in danger of being a target of antisemitic violence as a result of statements that I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to respond to that are outstanding? The statement in question says that {only} those that {redacted by respondent} Jesus, could have Eternal Life and forgivness, which IMHO could arouse antisemitic feelings and give some people to believe (falsly) that they are superior to Jews because Jews do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and those some could, and those some could think that the statement in question is supportive? If not, why not?
K. Could not, in your opinion, one taking mind-alering drugs that read that statement go into a mind-alterd state to want to kill themselves and /or others and target a Jew by the aspect that they could think that this community fosters the statement in question as being supportive since my request to Mr. Hsiung as to if the statement is supportive or not is outstanding? Could it help this community in any restoration if Mr. Hsiung did post a reply to my request here? If not, why not?
L. In your opinion, if I was not prohibited by the administration(redacted by respondent)lives could be saved?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 24, 2011, at 18:22:45
In reply to Lou's request-eupezvhcht » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 16:07:39
Lou no to above. Scott has legitimate questions and requests. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 19:48:25
In reply to Re: Lou's request-eupezvhcht » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 24, 2011, at 18:22:45
> Lou no to above. Scott has legitimate questions and requests. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...Lou no to above. Scott has ligitimate questions and requests...].
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.
Lou
I am requesting that those who would like to know what the questions that I have are to use the b-mail to me.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 24, 2011, at 21:44:19
In reply to Lou's request-mhnpstrovihnphomehyshn » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 19:48:25
Maybe someone other than I can word it better so you understand. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on October 26, 2011, at 7:44:28
In reply to Lou's request-eupezvhcht » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 16:07:39
Hi Lou.
> D. Did you have any part in assisting the administartion in what they did that could have caused the alledged damage?I don't think so. Do you?
Interesting question.
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on October 26, 2011, at 23:52:02
In reply to Lou's request-eupezvhcht » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2011, at 16:07:39
Could we not say that we all bear some of the responsibility?
In different ways and at different times.
One hesitates to say anything.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 16:28:17
In reply to Re: Lou's request-eupezvhcht, posted by sigismund on October 26, 2011, at 23:52:02
> Could we not say that we all bear some of the responsibility?
>
> In different ways and at different times.
>
> One hesitates to say anything.Sig,
You wrote,[...we all..different ways..One hesitates...].
I think, but others may not think, that if any community allows an administration to do whatever they do, then the community could be held liable for remaining silent if what the adminiistration is doing is wrong and could cause harm to community members.
Now in the historial record, one could learn by what others did or did not do that could have averted harm to members of that community. I am prohibited from posting here what people did or did not do in the years 1924 to 1945 that could have prevented the Holocaust. And there is much to know IMHO that if it could be known here by me posting what I am prohibited from posting here, what could be harmful to members here IMHO could be stopped.
You see, as long as my request to Mr. Hsiung to post as to if the statement in question is supportive or not remains outstanding, members could think that the statement is supportive, for support takes precedence here according to Mr. Hsiung.
I am dismayed that members do not post in that thread also asking Mr. Hsiung to post his reply to me. For if Mr. Hsiung did post his reply to me there, could that not have the potential to head off those that could think that they are superior to Jews because they have (redacted by respondent) Jesus and thearfore have forgiveness and eternal life even though they may have shot a Jew in the head? And does not the statement in quuestion have tthe potential for some to think that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murderd between 1933 and 1945 do not have forgivness or eternal life because they were Jews that did not accept the claim in question that {only}(redacted by respondent) Jesus? If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on November 3, 2011, at 19:06:08
In reply to Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 16:28:17
>>If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
Perhaps because they see no "ongoing" situation? Your seeing an ongoing situation does not make the existence of such a situation a verifiable fact to others, Lou.
I wish I could help you with this issue you see, but I cannot.
Posted by Phillipa on November 3, 2011, at 19:28:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on November 3, 2011, at 19:06:08
I agree. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 20:14:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on November 3, 2011, at 19:06:08
> >>If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
>
> Perhaps because they see no "ongoing" situation? Your seeing an ongoing situation does not make the existence of such a situation a verifiable fact to others, Lou.
>
> I wish I could help you with this issue you see, but I cannot.
>
> _der_,
You wrote,[...perhaps they see no...].
And perhaps they do see.
Here is a link to the ongoing situation as to that my request to Mr. Hsiung to post here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not. As long as my request is outstanding, the post has the potential for others to consider that the statement in question that says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus is supportive because Mr. Hsiung says here that support takes precedence. And as well, Mr. Hsiung states here that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
That could IMHHO have the potential to foster antisemitic feelings, while my request is outstanding, in the community and those that read here then could have the potential IMHO to be indoctrinated on the basis that a psychiatrist is the owner operator of this site. So some peope on psychotropic drugs could have the potential to be indoctrinated to think that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered between 1933 and 1945 can not have forgiveness or eternal life but the murderers, if they accepted the claim in question can, for the statement in question says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus.
Now my concern is that with all the members here, why is there not many, many members entering that thread and posting for Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if or if not he considers the statement supportive or not.
Here is the link to the post in question that has my request to Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive or not. Could you click on the link and post your opinion as to if it is or is not supportive in regards to the historical use, if you know, of the statement in fostering the Holocaust? If you could, then I could post there my response to you.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110117/msgs/999438.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 20:18:29
In reply to Lou's reply-blwihndhawyn » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 20:14:43
> > >>If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
> >
> > Perhaps because they see no "ongoing" situation? Your seeing an ongoing situation does not make the existence of such a situation a verifiable fact to others, Lou.
> >
> > I wish I could help you with this issue you see, but I cannot.
> >
> > _der_,
> You wrote,[...perhaps they see no...].
> And perhaps they do see.
> Here is a link to the ongoing situation as to that my request to Mr. Hsiung to post here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not. As long as my request is outstanding, the post has the potential for others to consider that the statement in question that says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus is supportive because Mr. Hsiung says here that support takes precedence. And as well, Mr. Hsiung states here that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
> That could IMHHO have the potential to foster antisemitic feelings, while my request is outstanding, in the community and those that read here then could have the potential IMHO to be indoctrinated on the basis that a psychiatrist is the owner operator of this site. So some peope on psychotropic drugs could have the potential to be indoctrinated to think that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered between 1933 and 1945 can not have forgiveness or eternal life but the murderers, if they accepted the claim in question can, for the statement in question says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus.
> Now my concern is that with all the members here, why is there not many, many members entering that thread and posting for Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if or if not he considers the statement supportive or not.
> Here is the link to the post in question that has my request to Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive or not. Could you click on the link and post your opinion as to if it is or is not supportive in regards to the historical use, if you know, of the statement in fostering the Holocaust? If you could, then I could post there my response to you.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110117/msgs/999438.html
>
> corrected link:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010117/msgs/999438
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 20:22:10
In reply to correction- Lou's reply-blwihndhawyn, posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 20:18:29
> > > >>If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
> > >
> > > Perhaps because they see no "ongoing" situation? Your seeing an ongoing situation does not make the existence of such a situation a verifiable fact to others, Lou.
> > >
> > > I wish I could help you with this issue you see, but I cannot.
> > >
> > > _der_,
> > You wrote,[...perhaps they see no...].
> > And perhaps they do see.
> > Here is a link to the ongoing situation as to that my request to Mr. Hsiung to post here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not. As long as my request is outstanding, the post has the potential for others to consider that the statement in question that says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus is supportive because Mr. Hsiung says here that support takes precedence. And as well, Mr. Hsiung states here that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
> > That could IMHHO have the potential to foster antisemitic feelings, while my request is outstanding, in the community and those that read here then could have the potential IMHO to be indoctrinated on the basis that a psychiatrist is the owner operator of this site. So some peope on psychotropic drugs could have the potential to be indoctrinated to think that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered between 1933 and 1945 can not have forgiveness or eternal life but the murderers, if they accepted the claim in question can, for the statement in question says that {only} those (redacted by respondent)Jesus.
> > Now my concern is that with all the members here, why is there not many, many members entering that thread and posting for Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if or if not he considers the statement supportive or not.
> > Here is the link to the post in question that has my request to Mr. Hsiung to post there as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive or not. Could you click on the link and post your opinion as to if it is or is not supportive in regards to the historical use, if you know, of the statement in fostering the Holocaust? If you could, then I could post there my response to you.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110117/msgs/999438.html
> >
> > corrected link:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010117/msgs/999438
> >
> Friends,
This is the final correction:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/999438.html
>
Posted by Phillipa on November 3, 2011, at 21:32:27
In reply to Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on November 3, 2011, at 16:28:17
I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 4:26:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 3, 2011, at 21:32:27
> I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
Phillipa,
You rote,[....don't understand...].
Could you read the folloing? If you could, then it might give you more information as to be able to understand and we could have the opportunity to have dialog to further understanding here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/999446.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/987630.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/987438.html
Posted by SLS on November 4, 2011, at 7:40:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 3, 2011, at 21:32:27
> I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 7:43:04
In reply to Lou's reply-doehntuhnndrpstn » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 4:26:09
> > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> You rote,[....don't understand...].
> Could you read the folloing? If you could, then it might give you more information as to be able to understand and we could have the opportunity to have dialog to further understanding here.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/999446.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/987630.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/987438.htmlPhillipa,
You wrote,[...has to do with (this site)...?].
The site has a mechinism that when peeople do searches in relation to mind-altering drugs, they could be directed to this site. This could bring a wide spectrum of people including people taking mind-altering drugs. There is research to show that these drugs have the potential to induce a mind-alterd state in the taker of the drug(s)to compel them to kill themselves and/or others. But when a person is in a community that fosters that Jews can not have forgivness or eternal life by the nature of the post in question here that states that {only} those that(redacted by respondent) Jesus can have eternal life and forgivness, then that could lead IMHHHO to that there is the potential here for an indoctrination for some to have a (false) feeling of superiority and think to target a Jew to murder. And there is the potential then for some to think IMHO by the nature of my requests to the admin being outstanding, that the statement in question is state-sponsored. This is part of my concern as to why there are not many many members here posting to Mr. Hsiung to post his response to my concerns here.
Here is a link to a post that may bring out that there are daily murders and that the murderers are taking a mind-altering drug. Now if those listed are checked to see if they visited this site, then there could be the potential that they got their idea to murder from here and there were not many many many members trying to stop any ideas that posts here say that Jews can not have eternal life or fogivness because they are not in the set of the {only} or that replacement theology is allowed to be posted here and said {...that's good...} by the owner/operator of this site to a member that posted a statement that is part of the doctrine of {replacement theology}. And if they shot a Jew in the head, and visited this site and there was the potential for them to say that they got their idea to do that from here, then Mr. Hsiung and his deputies that say that they do what will be good for the community as a whole could be (redacted by respondent).
Here is a link and there is another link leading to the SSRI stories that catalog the suicides, murders and other crimes of people that are taking psychotropic drugs.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20111027/msgs/1001411.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 8:20:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Phillipa, posted by SLS on November 4, 2011, at 7:40:55
> > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
>
> I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
D. Support takes precedence
E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
But there is much more to this. You see, Mr. Hsiung has posted to me many prohibitions. I could post a reply to the statement in question but the prohibitions prevent me doing so. I would need to post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me and I am prohibited from doing so. Thwre qre 12 biblical statements that the statement in question comes from. I have been revealed another meaning of all 12 that shows that Jews and others are not excluded from forgiveness and eternal life as the statement in question claims. Mr. Hsiung's rules prevent me from posting that revelation. Could you post as to if you think that the statement in question is supportive or not in that thread?
If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post my response to your post there.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 19:11:45
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 8:20:04
> > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> >
> > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> D. Support takes precedence
> E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
> But there is much more to this. You see, Mr. Hsiung has posted to me many prohibitions. I could post a reply to the statement in question but the prohibitions prevent me doing so. I would need to post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me and I am prohibited from doing so. Thwre qre 12 biblical statements that the statement in question comes from. I have been revealed another meaning of all 12 that shows that Jews and others are not excluded from forgiveness and eternal life as the statement in question claims. Mr. Hsiung's rules prevent me from posting that revelation. Could you post as to if you think that the statement in question is supportive or not in that thread?
> If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post my response to your post there.
> LouFriends,
That the posting of the doctrine of replacement theology is said by Mr. Hsiung to be {OK} to post here, leads me for a want to know if Mr. Hsiung considers that to be supportive in regards to the post in question here. My request to him is outstanding.
But do you know what replacement theology is? And does the bible teach it as truth? I could answer that but Mr. Hsiung has placed restraints upon me that I am prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. There are other prohibitions also that keep me from posting a response to the post in question which could show that the claim that {only} those that (redacted by respondent)Jesus could have eternal life and forgivness.
Here is a link to a video that I am requesting thosse interested in tthis thread to view.
Lou
To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in;
[youtube, Satan's Great: Replacement Theology].
You will see writing (no pic) The time is 15 min posted on Nov 7 2010
Posted by Phillipa on November 4, 2011, at 20:32:47
In reply to Lou's reply-rheeplazmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 19:11:45
Well I guess I'm in a heap of trouble when dead as I just dont believe there is an eternal life. And it's my belief to post this. The Bible to me has been interpreted so many times and life is so different now I enjoyed Di Vinci's Code. So I rot and if dead what do I care? Being of a scientific background and belief show me and I will believe it and I mean show me Jesus or God?
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 8:20:04
> > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> >
> > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> D. Support takes precedence
> E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 7:58:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rheeplazmnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 4, 2011, at 20:32:47
> Well I guess I'm in a heap of trouble when dead as I just dont believe there is an eternal life. And it's my belief to post this. The Bible to me has been interpreted so many times and life is so different now I enjoyed Di Vinci's Code. So I rot and if dead what do I care? Being of a scientific background and belief show me and I will believe it and I mean show me Jesus or God?
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...show me...].
I have posted here concerning this a while ago...
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/217.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 8:44:32
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
> > > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> > >
> > > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> > He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> > A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> > B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> > C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> > D. Support takes precedence
> > E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> > F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
>
> Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
>
> Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
>
> What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
>
> It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...Lou, what you are asking mee to do is to petition (Mr. Hsiung) to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity...].
hummmmmmm.
Although that is part of this situation here that involves my requests to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy that are outstanding, the overiding request from me to Mr. Hsiung is for him to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question to be {supportive} or not. For as of now readers can think that the statement is supportive on the grouunds that Mr Hsiung's TOS states that support is what the forum is for and that support takes precedence. That could have the potential IMHO to mean to readers that what is seen is what is considered to be supportive unlesss it is notated by the administration as not being supportive, like all the other posts here that the administration has sanctioned on those grounds.
But it is much more than that to me. You see, the statement in question precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus that are the {only} set of people that could have forgivness and eternal life. The use of the word {only} precludes all others than what set of people the statement includes. This could mean then that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered in the years from 1933 to 1945 and all those that have ever lived and never heard of that Christian claim or rejected the claim in question are without forgivness and eternal life. The poster states that the bible says that. Really? And I am prohibited from answering the poster's claim because of Mr. Hsiung's prohibitions here.
So what I am asking for members to do is:
A. Post in that thread as to if or if not you consider the claim in question supportive or not.
B. And also to post there your concern, if you have such, as to that you also would like for Mr. Hsiung to post there the answer to my request to him.
You see, as long as my request remains outstanding, others could think that Mr. Hsiung allows the statement in question to stand, and then there is the potential IMHHHO for some others to take what is claimed to be considerd by the community in toto to be what the community wants to promulgate, unless members post there that they do not consider the statement to be supportive to them. You see, the community can also controll what is thought to be promulgated by the administration by protesting and speaking out and rising up to what they think is not what they condone by the administration.
So as long as there are not members posting there that do not want others to think that they condone what is seen, then there is the potential IMHO for other readers to think that the members are in agreement with the administration.
Now if the President of The United States appeared on national television and said what the post in question says, I would protest and let others know tthat I am not in agreement with him. In fact, I would use all my might to impeach him if he said that.
You can think about it, but the consequences to the Jews and others that do not accept the claim in question will be ongoing until Mr. Hsiung posts there to state as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive. Those consequences could be the murder of Jews and others that do not accept that claim by those that visit this site and get their idea in their minds from reading the statement in question to murder those that the claim excludes fro forgivness and eternal life. Do you want to support that possibility? If not, could you take this opportunity to post in that thread your opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 15:58:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 8:44:32
> > > > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> > > >
> > > > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> > > He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> > > A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> > > B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> > > C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> > > D. Support takes precedence
> > > E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> > > F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
> >
> > Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
> >
> > Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
> >
> > What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
> >
> > It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Lou, what you are asking mee to do is to petition (Mr. Hsiung) to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity...].
> hummmmmmm.
> Although that is part of this situation here that involves my requests to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy that are outstanding, the overiding request from me to Mr. Hsiung is for him to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question to be {supportive} or not. For as of now readers can think that the statement is supportive on the grouunds that Mr Hsiung's TOS states that support is what the forum is for and that support takes precedence. That could have the potential IMHO to mean to readers that what is seen is what is considered to be supportive unlesss it is notated by the administration as not being supportive, like all the other posts here that the administration has sanctioned on those grounds.
> But it is much more than that to me. You see, the statement in question precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus that are the {only} set of people that could have forgivness and eternal life. The use of the word {only} precludes all others than what set of people the statement includes. This could mean then that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered in the years from 1933 to 1945 and all those that have ever lived and never heard of that Christian claim or rejected the claim in question are without forgivness and eternal life. The poster states that the bible says that. Really? And I am prohibited from answering the poster's claim because of Mr. Hsiung's prohibitions here.
> So what I am asking for members to do is:
> A. Post in that thread as to if or if not you consider the claim in question supportive or not.
> B. And also to post there your concern, if you have such, as to that you also would like for Mr. Hsiung to post there the answer to my request to him.
> You see, as long as my request remains outstanding, others could think that Mr. Hsiung allows the statement in question to stand, and then there is the potential IMHHHO for some others to take what is claimed to be considerd by the community in toto to be what the community wants to promulgate, unless members post there that they do not consider the statement to be supportive to them. You see, the community can also controll what is thought to be promulgated by the administration by protesting and speaking out and rising up to what they think is not what they condone by the administration.
> So as long as there are not members posting there that do not want others to think that they condone what is seen, then there is the potential IMHO for other readers to think that the members are in agreement with the administration.
> Now if the President of The United States appeared on national television and said what the post in question says, I would protest and let others know tthat I am not in agreement with him. In fact, I would use all my might to impeach him if he said that.
> You can think about it, but the consequences to the Jews and others that do not accept the claim in question will be ongoing until Mr. Hsiung posts there to state as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive. Those consequences could be the murder of Jews and others that do not accept that claim by those that visit this site and get their idea in their minds from reading the statement in question to murder those that the claim excludes fro forgivness and eternal life. Do you want to support that possibility? If not, could you take this opportunity to post in that thread your opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> LouScott,
You wrote,[...I think that one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being the components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in similar fashion rationales for comitting genocide if they are fundamental to theiir religion?...].
Yes, the rules have been well-established here by the administration that it is not supportive to state that there is the one and only Truth by using the words {only} or {shall}. And he also states that support takes preceence. This is why I think that members posting in that thread with their opinions as to if the statement in question is supportive or not is important here. For the historical record shows what could happen when the {state} allows others to say that they are in a set of people that are the only ones to have forgivness and eternal life which prcludes all others, or to say that they are the {master race}.
Lou
Here is a video that I am requesting for interested member to view. To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube, Kristallnacht-1938]
This could come up first and there is a pic of a building and the time is 5 min posted on November 26 2006
Posted by sigismund on November 6, 2011, at 0:55:30
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
>It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
It's only a problem with monotheism, isn't it?
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.