![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 22:12:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:03:47
The post contains the same content and text it always has. What a URL links to is not part of the "record" of a Babble post.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of gg's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 21:36:24
Friends,
It is written here [...that Dr. Hsiung has made clear that what is posted stays...].
If that is true,that is why I am asking for the record to be restored to its original. For if Dr. Hsiung has said that, then what was posted is gone, it did not stay. That is why I am asking for the restoration of all posts to their original, to meet what Racer has written as to what she believes to be Dr. Hsiung's expectations for what is posted to stay.
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:03:47
> That is why I am asking that the posts be restored. I am not asking for it to be changed from the original, but restored to the original.
>But here's the thing, Lou: You're NOT asking that the original be restored. Nothing has changed in the original post. The original post is exactly as it was.
What has changed is the way searches are done on the site linked to. The other site has changed its search function. Therefore, the old search no longer works.
As a result of the change to the other site, the site that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Bob or Babble, the link in the original post which used the old search format no longer works. The post has not changed. It's still as written, whenever that was. It is the original post, in its original form.
What you're asking for is to have the post changed, to reflect the change made to the other site.
Maybe it will happen. But I just want to make sure you're aware of what you're asking for. You are asking for a change to be made, not for any "restoration" of the original post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:24:19
In reply to The record has not changed, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 22:12:39
Friends,
It is written,[...what a URL links to is not part of the record...]
I remember a discussion that Dr. Hsiung wrote that a link is part of being directly to the text. And in our discussion he said that the second click from the first link was different.
In this case, the poster offered a link. That, according to my memory was said by Dr. Hsiung to be linked directly to the text and could not contain uncivil content. I also remember that gg wrote that something in a link would have to be civil.
I think that if something is {directly to the text}, that it is part of the text and that restoration to its original is restoring the text in its completness.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
In reply to No, you're not asking for that... » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
Friends,
It is written,[...the original post is exactly as it was..].
That is not the way that I see it. I remember the original post that linked to statements. These statements are according to Dr. Hsiung, directly to the text.
When the link then led to ,[...URL not found...], I think that that is different from the original and I would like the original as it was posted to be restored to show the record intact.
When you look at the post with out the link, there are discussions about what was in the link. Now that the link is gone, the discussions can not be connected to the missing statements. If the post was restored, then the discussion could be seen as to its relationship to what was in the link. Without the link, the post is incomplete. Restoring the link makes the post complete. I am asking that the posts return to there complete context so that one can see what is there.
In those posts, there are many statements that accuse the Jews of killing Christ and other statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I would like to hear from both sides of the links to find out for myself what has caused this and make no judgment untill then as to what could be the thing to do in this case. Maybe the links will reappear all by themselves?
But there are many other posts that have defaming statements about Jews that still are there when you click on the link. If anyone would want those I could email them to you at your request.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 8:57:52
In reply to No, you're not asking for that... » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 27, 2006, at 22:16:58
If you click on the link, you do get a 'not found' message.
But you also land on a page of the 'host' site, with a space to do a search.
If you type in the original search criteria (which can be determined by the original URL) you will get the same results - but with a different URL.
Conclusion: They changed their search function.
They probably said they didn't because they didn't realize the original was over a year old.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:37:30
In reply to Re: You are right, Racer » Racer, posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 8:57:52
Friends,
It iswritten,[..they probably changed it...the post was a year old..]
This is one of the aspects IMO of this. You see, even if it is changed now, it was there for a year? And was there not the potential for indoctrination to occur because the statements that the Jews killed Christ were left unsanctioned for that time and people could have the ppotential to think that since Dr. Hsiung writes that he does in his thinking what will be good for the community as a whole, that it is good for the community as a whole to leave those statements unsanctioned and then could there not be the potential that others could think that those statements are civil and suppportive on this forum by the nature that they are not sanctioned and that DR. Hsiung has posted that one match can start a forest fire, but this match was not put out by sanctioning the statement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 9:43:27
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
> But there are many other posts that have defaming statements about Jews that still are there when you click on the link. If anyone would want those I could email them to you at your request.
Are you then providing here an email link to posts that you question the civility of?
Do the links contained within these posts contain biblical passages that you find objectionable?
- Scott
Posted by sunnydays on August 28, 2006, at 9:55:38
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 22:58:58
Why do you want to restore to the original anything that could arouse antiSemitic feelings? If it's gone, isn't that better, as now no one will be influenced by the content on that site?
sunnydays
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Racer's post » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 9:43:27
Friends,
It is written her,[..the email..posts..]
The posts here are a matter of public concern and go to the public's interest and can be emailed. They are plainly visible here and if those that want me to send them to them, I am only sending what is already here to see to save them time to search.
Let us keep in mind that we can not post some URLs on the board, but anyone can email the URLs here to anyone, for it is stated here that the URL of a particular blog can not be posted here, but it could be in the babble mail or in an email.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:06:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Racer's post » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on August 28, 2006, at 9:55:38
Friends,
It is written here,[..why do you want those posts that have statements that could arrouse antisemitic feelings to be restored..?]
I am asking that they be restored so that they then can have a post from Dr. Hsiung that says that they are uncivil and not supportive.
You see, if those posts are a year old, others could have seen them at their innitial appearing and could have the potential to think that since they were not sanctioned that they were civil and supportive. Those people may not go back to those posts a year after they saw them. But if a post by Dr.Hsiung is posted now, would it not come up on the main board? And there are posts that are still in their original form that accuse Jews that have not been sanctioned That is what I am asking for. In your opinion, is that asking too much?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:41:13
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
Friends,
It is written her[..a bible verse?..]
I think that those that are interested in this might be suprised at the answetr to this. Those that are interested can email me for those and if you do not want your email to me to be known, others have opened a Yahoo email account and used that to email me to retain anonimity.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 11:26:57
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
> Friends,
> It is written her,[..the email..posts..]
> The posts here are a matter of public concern and go to the public's interest and can be emailed. They are plainly visible here and if those that want me to send them to them, I am only sending what is already here to see to save them time to search.
> Let us keep in mind that we can not post some URLs on the board, but anyone can email the URLs here to anyone, for it is stated here that the URL of a particular blog can not be posted here, but it could be in the babble mail or in an email.
> Lou PilderJust be careful that you don't get blocked...
- Scott
Posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:41:13
> Those that are interested can email me for those and if you do not want your email to me to be known, others have opened a Yahoo email account and used that to email me to retain anonimity.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netI guess I just don't understand why you won't just use babblemail? Why should anyone else have to go to the trouble of setting up an anonymous email account, just to find out what you have to say? There's already an anonymous feature set up here on this site. Why not just use it?
While I might be interested in hearing the rest of what you have to say, I'm certainly not interested in going to all that trouble, just because you choose not to use Babblemail.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 14:40:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
Babblemail is subject to the civility rules.
Posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
> Below is the URL of the search results I obtained by using the same search terms and the site's scripture search tool. Please note, I inserted a space after "org" in order to avoid posting a link to material that could be considered not civil. The actual URL does not contain that space, and you must remove it in order to access the link.
> [xxx]Well, this might be better fodder for the Religion board, but its context is here, so...
I did do that search, completed the URL as gg suggested, and the only reference in that search regarding Jews killing Jesus is reference #44 to The Book of Mormon 7:5. Taken out of context, as many people might do, it can be seen as antisemitic and used as "justification" of such beliefs.
Reading all the The Book of Mormon (not the Mormon Bible, but that particular book) illustrates that 7:5 is part of a rebuke of how his audience has forgotten that they were once children of Israel, and how their violence has further separated themselves from the true children of Israel. But these are the words of a man -- Mormon, seen as a later prophet within the Judeo-Christian framework.
Further reading -- The second book of Nephi (who was Mormon's father) Chapter 29 is quite interesting. In it Nephi quotes the direct word of God rebuking the Gentiles for their antisemitism: "O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have acursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people." I would think this particular direct relation of the Word of God should illustrate the LDS view on anitsemitism; at least those who hold true to their Covenant.
The context of quotes must always be examined. The shorter the quote, the more important its context. Revealing that context can either show the quote as genuine in the connotation implied, or reveal the use of the quote as a fraud and a misappropriation of its true intent and meaning.
Lou, I'm not going to email you for URLs, valid or not-valid (ie whether anything still exists there) for your evidence. I've taken the time to talk to a number of Mormons doing their missionary service (they have a dormitory and church a few blocks from my apartment here in NYC). I've heard nothing but religious tolerance, respect, and even love for the Judeo-Christian faiths that came before the Church of Latter Day Saints was founded (and the same for those founded after it). They hold the same respect and interest in religions outside this tradition. I've heard nothing but genuine interest in them about finding out about other faiths, given the teachings of their faith.
So, to call for the "reinstatement" of pages illustrating antisemitic statements, particularly misappropriations of The Book of Mormon (the whole thing this time) should give fair weight to how the statements can be construed as anti-Semitic **and** how they are also in their misrepresentation anti-Mormon.
If any wrongs are to be addressed, all wrongs an event caused should be addressed. Would you not think that reasonable?
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2006, at 23:43:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
I thank you for that.
I have been concerned that this entire subject might lead people to believe that Mormons are antisemitic, while nothing is further from the truth.
I learned to be a semitophile at my Mormon mother's knee, and have never heard anything but respect for Jews and for the Jewish covenant with God from any Mormon I've ever spoken to. I was *specifically* taught in the Mormon church to respect the covenant God made with Abraham and the Mosaic code.
Of all the Christian denominations with which I've been affiliated, I have found the LDS church *particularly* respectful of the Jewish faith, Jewish ideals, etc. Which is not to say that the other Christian denominations were antisemitic. I've found a refreshing ecumenical spirit in many many places.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 7:28:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
Friends,
It is written,[...{Taken out of context}..it (can be seen as antisemitic) and used as "justification of such beliefs..].
Well, as being taken out of context, I think that if the post was restored, that each person could make their own determination as to if the statement in question is or is not out of context and that is one of the reasons that I would like to have the post restored. The verse before that one in that list of verses gives more to what the verse you cited says and defines the context.
If the post was restored, then I could have the opportunity to post a response from my perspective there.
Reading the statement in question, there is the imperitive in it. As to how this verse has been used for 2000 years is evident historically. I would welcome any discussion to show what the verse says in its context by restoring the post to its original.
If anyone is interested in this discussion and would like the original that is in discussion, you could email me for the original if you would like.
Lou PIlder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 7:28:37
Friends,
It is written,[...Revealing the context can either show...].
I agree that the context is relevant here and that is why I am asking permissiom to post the restored post so that a discussion could ensue to examine the context.
It is written,[...illistrating {antisemitic} statements...]
Friends, I do not believe that I have posted that the statements are antisemitic. What I have posted is that there are statements that have {the potential, IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings.}and have been used historically for such. When they are posted in any forum, there is that potential. In this forum, I am requesting that the posts be restored so that I have the opportunity to post from my perspective. I am not asking that the posts be sanctioned, but I am asking for the opportunity to post my response to them and would like them restored to do so. And since I am a Jew, the response will come from the Jewish perspective.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:43:52
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
Friends,
It is written,[...Further reading...(of the LDS verses)...]
I do not believe that I posted the church's affilliation to the posts in question here and it is not my intention to focus on any one affilliation, for the statements stand on their own, even if they are not part of a church's doctrins. In other words, they could be posted by an atheist and still have the potential,IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings and that is why I would like the opportunity to post a response to those statements on the board where they were. My response could give a balance to the perspective that is there. Then there could be a discussion and all could post their perspective.
Could you please not post anything that could have the potential to be thought to mean that you are concluding that I am talking about a particular church, for it is the statements in question that I would like to post my response to and not the church's position on them?
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 2, 2006, at 9:16:16
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
> And since I am a Jew, the response will come from the Jewish perspective.
Certainly, the response will come from one Jewish person's perspective.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 9:34:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by SLS on September 2, 2006, at 9:16:16
Friends,
It is written here,[..from one Jewish person's perspective...]
There is an overiding perspective of the Jews concerning the posts in question. The perspective that I would like to post is one that is the same as the Jewish community as a whole.
If you would like to know this perspective, you could email me and I will send it to you at your request. Then if you know of another perspective that the Jews hold in regards to the statemnts in question, I would like if you could send it to me.
Lou PIlder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 10:06:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » finelinebob, posted by Dinah on September 1, 2006, at 23:43:31
Friends,
It is written here,[...might lead people to believe that Mormons are antisemitic, while nothing is further from the truth...].
Friends,it is not my intention to have a discussion as to if a particular church is "antisemitic" or not. But this post here has me wanting to respond to what could have the potential to lead some to think about what is the criteria for anything being antisemitic or not.
First, it is not my intention to show as to anything is antisemitic or not. The statements in question that I would like restored are in my concern as to IMO that they have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. So I would like to post a response as to how a Jewish person, sees those statements.
As to the criteria for anything being antisemitic, the internet can lead you to those definitions in a search as to what the commonly accepted criteria are.
But as to if a particular church is antisemitic, the criteria for such can be used to make that determination as to see if the church in question has for its doctrins what could be considered to be antisemitic by commonly accepted criteria.
Be advised that I also have had many conversations with many representatives of many denominations as a Jew. And in the conversations that I have had concerning how they view the Jews, if you would like those, I could email them to you at your request if you would like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 10:45:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
Friends,
It is written,[...how the statements can be construed as anti-Semitic...]
I think that this statement here speaks volumes.
You see, it is my same concern that the statements in question could have the potential to be construed to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. So I am asking for the administration to give me the permission to post the restoration of the posts to their original so that I can post a response as to how myself, a Jew, sees those statements in question. And there are not just one statement in question here, but many.
Now there is a way for anyone to do the restoration, so as to how this has happened is moot. For the question now is if I, or anyone else, has the permission to do so as pertaining to the interpretation of the new administrative rules that pertain to posting URLs and such.
In this administrative discussion, there has come up other issues and I am now requesting from the administration that I be allowed to post here in this thread the perspective from the Jewish community about these statements in question. Would that not be reasonable to request that I be allowed to post a link to that here?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2006, at 6:34:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
> Below is the URL of the search results I obtained by using the same search terms and the site's scripture search tool. Please note, I inserted a space after "org" in order to avoid posting a link to material that could be considered not civil. The actual URL does not contain that space, and you must remove it in order to access the link.
> [xxx]Thanks, but I think I need to consider that equivalent to posting it in one piece...
Bob
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.