![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 57. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by tecknohed on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Phillipa, posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2007, at 9:53:33
> > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
>
> Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
Dr Bob, I consider your above actions an INSULT to Phillipa, who in my opinion was simply trying to help, giving her own 'opinion' most likely from her own experiences!
Go on then, block me too. And a merry Christmas to ya!
Posted by ace on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by tecknohed on December 26, 2007, at 20:44:58
> > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> >
> > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> >
> > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
>
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.* I must agree with this posters sentiments. I feel maybe we are getting a bit overboard with this 'blocking'.
Dr. Bob- do you block on the basis of the regularity of a person coming on your site?
I am seeing some things here that concern me- do you want me to email you.
I realise, of late, I rarely post on the site due to time constraints, but I do check the site very often, and, I personally feel some aspects of the 'regulatory aspects' of the site could be causing more harm than good.
I am certainly not annoyed, angry or feel ill towards anyone, and once again this is only MY feelings.
> Dr Bob, I consider your above actions an INSULT to Phillipa, who in my opinion was simply trying to help, giving her own 'opinion' most likely from her own experiences!* I can personally see how Phillipa could perhaps feel hurt by the block.
> Go on then, block me too. And a merry Christmas to ya!* Buddy, I wouldn't try to get so worked up about these things. Maybe just email Dr. Bob your feelings before posting?
Regards,
Ace
Posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week » tecknohed, posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 22:16:22
Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
I found the automatic wrist monitor always much higher than the manual ones. Since the cuff used in my husband's doctor's office is the manual type, I felt the automatic cuff would not give a valid comparison to the one in the MDO.
Blocking her seems inappropriate based on what she wrote. How about all the posts on junkie doctors, did you just miss those or are those OK?
stargazer
Posted by ace on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week/WHY? I don't see the reason, posted by stargazer2 on December 26, 2007, at 22:39:05
> Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
>
> I found the automatic wrist monitor always much higher than the manual ones. Since the cuff used in my husband's doctor's office is the manual type, I felt the automatic cuff would not give a valid comparison to the one in the MDO.
>
> Blocking her seems inappropriate based on what she wrote. How about all the posts on junkie doctors, did you just miss those or are those OK?Are you referring to the % of psychiatrists' substance abuse?
> stargazer
Posted by seldomseen on December 27, 2007, at 5:36:20
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by tecknohed on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
Do you we have to be civil now to things and not just people?
I guess I just don't see the potential psychological harm to anyone in generalizing about blood pressure monitors.
Seldom
Posted by gardenergirl on December 27, 2007, at 8:47:04
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by seldomseen on December 27, 2007, at 5:36:20
It has been my experience, both while as a deputy here and as a community member, that there are times when Dr. Bob sanctions someone for a post that is not the post or issue from that poster that has caused the most recent consternation and/or notifications. More than once I have been aware of discussions about a post that seems to be actionable, but for any number of reasons is something that is deferred to Dr. Bob. When Dr. Bob later acts, I've noticed that he has often selected something different from that poster to PBC or block about. And I've often felt perplexed at why he chose to do that versus using the post or posts which were the original upsetting ones, and/or the ones originally notified about. Though I have no idea why it has worked out like this on more than one occasion, it's almost as if Dr. Bob goes in search of something else actionable by that poster, perhaps in order to avoid the other issue, which might be more polarizing, controversial, strongly upsetting but "on the line" of civility, etc. That something else he finds has sometimes felt rather "lame" to me as far as being actionable--a stretch. Perhaps this particular blocking appears similarly confusing or "lame" to others as the prior incidents I've tried to describe have?
Only Dr. Bob could tell us his thought processes when issuing PBC's and blocks. What I've written about here is just the thoughts that I had based on what has caught my eye in the past. It's speculation. Hypothesizing. I could be totally way off base.
Anywhoo...for some reason I was reminded of those thoughts by this issue.
Regards,
gg
Posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 12:15:55
In reply to Re: blocked for week/WHY? I don't see the reason » stargazer2, posted by ace on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
ace, this is what I'm referring to, there is no rhyme or reason for a rationale for blocking people. If Phillipa is blocked why wasn't the poster of this?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071213/msgs/801618.html
It seems as though the blocking process is random and subjective at times. I guess since it is a manual and subjective process, that can happen. Some will be missed and others enforced too harshly or without merit. I just thought this post stating "crazy" doctors was really an overgeneralization and a much more clear reason for blocking someone and Phillipa's was not clear at all.
Peace to you down in Australia, I respect all of your posts and am happy that I have rejoined the Nardil march to happiness and freedom. Why I was taken off of it is 1991 is beyond me, but I now now it was a mistake that resulted in many years (1993-2007)of futile searches and unstableness for other newer, less harmful drugs that never existed. 14 years of torment that could have been avoided if the psychiatry world knew more about MAO's and weren't so influence by pharmaceutical spin doctoring and financial incentives.
Bring on 2008, hopefully my chance to shine again.
Stargazer
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 13:35:10
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by seldomseen on December 27, 2007, at 5:36:20
I found the block.... surprising.
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 13:35:44
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2007, at 13:35:10
While adding that I realize that reasonable people can read things differently.
Posted by Jamal Spelling on December 27, 2007, at 13:36:55
In reply to junkie doctors post/ace, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 12:15:55
Good day
> ace, this is what I'm referring to, there is no rhyme or reason for a rationale for blocking people. If Phillipa is blocked why wasn't the poster of this?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071213/msgs/801618.html
>
> It seems as though the blocking process is random and subjective at times. I guess since it is a manual and subjective process, that can happen. Some will be missed and others enforced too harshly or without merit. I just thought this post stating "crazy" doctors was really an overgeneralization and a much more clear reason for blocking someone and Phillipa's was not clear at all.I am the poster of the "junkie doc" post. My name is Jamal Spelling.
1. I don't agree with Phillipa's block either.
2. My post said nothing about doctors being crazy.
3. I do not believe my post over-generalized, or even generalized.
4. My post links to an article discussing drug addicted doctors.
5. In particular, it features a woman who was left with open wounds after an alcoholic surgeon operated on her, and it describes an incident where a drunk obstetrician severed a baby's spine during birth. Hence my remarks about "crack head" surgeons etc.
6. I concede that my choice of language was inflammatory. This was done because (a) I wanted to liven up the board a little (Psycho-Babble can be quite depressing at times) and (b) because of the nature of the topic, that being substance abusing surgeons who botch operations.
7. In a previous thread, see
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071204/msgs/799351.html,
I did over-generalize to the point where I got a PBC and perhaps should have been blocked. I consider myself lucky that Dr Bob and his deputies were lenient on that occasion.
8. Please stop asking Dr Bob to block me (if indeed that is what you are doing by repeatedly asking him why I wasn't blocked while Phillipa was).
I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding. Remember, I do not even know you, so please do not take anything that I said personally.
Kind regards
Jamal Spelling
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 27, 2007, at 14:16:44
In reply to junkie doctors post/ace, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 12:15:55
>How about all the posts on junkie doctors, did you just miss those or are those OK?
> ace, this is what I'm referring to....if Phillipa is blocked why wasn't the poster of this?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071213/msgs/801618.html
>I just thought this post stating "crazy" doctors .was really an overgeneralizationIf you believe there is an issue with a post, please follow the site guidelines by using the Notify the Administrators button instead of posting your comments on the boards.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 16:57:21
In reply to Re: 'The Poster' responds, posted by Jamal Spelling on December 27, 2007, at 13:36:55
Jamal... I used your post as a comparison as to why Phillipa's was blocked and yours wasn't. I could have used any number of other posts, but I had remembered the title of your post and I thought it perhaps was worthy of a block as it referred to "crack head" doctors, which seemed inflammatory to me.
I would never post to Admin to block someone since that is not my focus, but the deputies.
Also I did not ask anyone to block you and I don't usually get upset about who gets blocks unless I feel someone is being blocked for an unlear reason, as so many did in this sitution.I have nothing against you personally, as I don't know you as you stated. I did not "repeatedly ask" Dr Bob to block you either, so I wanted you to know that. Not even once did I do this, so I am confused by why you thought I repetedly asked him to block you.
Sorry for any miscommunication this has caused. My point was to imply that other posts have the same or more offensiveness than Phillipa's where she compares BP monitoring techniques. That is the same as saying that an oral temperature is not as accurate than an rectal one.
I don't think not being blocked has anything to do with leniency but with a difference of opinions between deputies or perhaps the inability to monitor each and every post for perceived "offenses".
No offense was directed at you, just at the term you used "crack heads" as being perhaps a posting offense. Believe me, I have limited knowledge of why a block is applied and don't usually care. I like when others get fired up and get a post heated especially when it is not done to offend others. We all have alot to learn here and I would be the first one to say I don't know alot about how this board functions, other than it being a forum for support and information, never as one to create tension or discriminate against others.
No personal offense taken and none impied towards you...Be well and continue to speaak the truth or some version of it.
Stargazer
Posted by Jamal Spelling on December 28, 2007, at 3:34:22
In reply to Re: 'The Poster' responds/Jamal...The Poster, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 16:57:21
Hi Stargazer. No problem, don't worry, no offense taken, etc.
Kind regards, Jamal.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week/WHY? I don't see the reason, posted by stargazer2 on December 27, 2007, at 1:01:04
> > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
>
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
>
> tecknohed> Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
>
> stargazerSomething like:
> cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
or:
> many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:21:37
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
> > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> >
> > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> >
> > tecknohed
>
> > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> >
> > stargazer
>
> Something like:
>
> > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
>
> or:
>
> > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
>
> I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
>
> Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
Lou Pilder
Posted by seldomseen on December 28, 2007, at 13:36:13
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
I guess my contention was not that an generalization was made. I agree that one was.
However, it was made about what is basically an appliance.
I am quick to agree that we are not to generalize about people as that can upset some.
But can we take a closer look at who may be upset if we generalize about a blood pressure monitor?
Am I just missing the point?
Seldom.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:47:50
In reply to Lou's response to post by Robert Hsiung-xpos? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:21:37
> > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > >
> > > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> > >
> > > tecknohed
> >
> > > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> > >
> > > stargazer
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
> >
> > or:
> >
> > > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
> >
> > I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
> >
> > Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
> When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In any reply from you to me here, could you also include in your reply taking in the past post by Ame Sans Vie (alav hashalom)
Lou Pilder
The phrase is in about the 5th paragraph starting with,[...Oh, and just one last thing...following poop-out, it seems that, ...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031015/msgs/270100.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 14:48:53
In reply to Lou's response to post by Robert Hsiung-pstprc?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 13:47:50
> > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > >
> > > > ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!! What EXACTLY did she say wrong? I didn't see any over-generalization. She also said 'more often than not', NOT all of them. Many people buy cheap ones for under $20, & compared to the more expensive ones they 'probably' ARE often inaccurate.
> > > >
> > > > tecknohed
> > >
> > > > Phillipa is right...many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types so by her saying this she is making an accurate statement about her experiences with the two types.
> > > >
> > > > stargazer
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > > cheap ones are often less accurate compared to expensive ones
> > >
> > > or:
> > >
> > > > many of the automatic BP cuffs are not as accurate as the manual types
> > >
> > > I think would be fine. But "the automatic ones" in general, and "more often than not", which means more than half the time, together I considered an overgeneralization.
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting. I'm sure Phillipa appreciates your support, and maybe if we discuss this we can develop together a way to interpret this that we can all accept.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...if we discuss this...I consider "more often than not" to be a generalization together with "the automatic ones"...]
> > When did you first start to consider that a generalization? Could you use in any reply from you to me here the following post? If not could you post here why you could not?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
> In any reply from you to me here, could you also include in your reply taking in the past post by Ame Sans Vie (alav hashalom)
> Lou Pilder
> The phrase is in about the 5th paragraph starting with,[...Oh, and just one last thing...following poop-out, it seems that, ...]
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031015/msgs/270100.htmlMr. Hsiung,
Could you also include ain any reply to me her the following post?
Lou PIlder
The statement is about the third paragraph;
[...suicide is more...]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050521/msgs/503169.html
>
Posted by AbbieNormal on December 28, 2007, at 20:29:29
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 28, 2007, at 9:20:00
Bob - You are being an *ss.
She is entitled to her experienced opinion.
Don't 1000's of posters offer their opinions about meds here? What the hell is the difference??
If I say Zyprexa increased my appetite, and therefore, I think it's sucky med...I'm generalizing my experience to all patients....but, that's OK?
Seriously...it's obvious when you are screwing up. This is one of those times.
Posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2007, at 0:34:23
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing ...PULLEEEEZ! » Dr. Bob, posted by AbbieNormal on December 28, 2007, at 20:29:29
Can anyone explain the difference?
If I say that such and such a drug is often helpful, that's a generalisation, right?
What's an overgeneralisation?
Something you don't agree with?
Or have I missed it?
Posted by Jamal Spelling on December 29, 2007, at 3:01:29
In reply to generalising vs over generalising, posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2007, at 0:34:23
> Can anyone explain the difference?
Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
See, it makes perfect sense!
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:01:16
In reply to Re: generalising vs over generalising » Sigismund, posted by Jamal Spelling on December 29, 2007, at 3:01:29
> > Can anyone explain the difference?
>
> Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
>
> See, it makes perfect sense!Friends,
It is written here,[...if I say...]
Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
Lou
here is the link to the post;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-malcus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:01:16
> > > Can anyone explain the difference?
> >
> > Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
> >
> > See, it makes perfect sense!
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...if I say...]
> Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
> As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
> A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
> B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
> C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
> Lou
> here is the link to the post;
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.htmlFriends,
In appraising what could or could not be an exaggereation, in particular in a mental health community, one could examine;
A. Who are the people that the statement could cause a reader to do and what could those people do after reading the statement?
B. To what degree of harm, could the generalizatiion, if it is a generization, cause?
Let us look at an historical parallel.
In Hitler's fantasy, generalization resulted in mass-murder by the use of scapegoating and propaganda directed toward groups to arrouse ill-will against those groups. The historical record of Geobbles and Stryker are filled with exaggerations and overgeneralizations. You can email me for those if you like.
Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
But what is the harm to anyone here concerning Phillipa's use of {more often than not}? Will groups of people be persecuted from her posting here her figurative ideas about a blood-pressure cuff?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 9:52:02
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-rely?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
> > > > Can anyone explain the difference?
> > >
> > > Well, Sigismund, it is actually very simple. If I say something like "SSRIs cause apathy" then that is a generalization. On the other hand, if I say something like "anti-psychotics cause weight gain" then that is an over-generalization.
> > >
> > > See, it makes perfect sense!
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...if I say...]
> > Here is a post where the member uses {more often than not}. It is in the sentance using,[...prescribed wrong drug...] as you can see in the offered link here.
> > As to determining what is or is not exaggerating, I ask:
> > A. would a reasonable person that reads {prescribed wrong drug...} think that that is an overgenerization?
> > B. If so, what could be the potential consequences to a reader here on a mental-health site as to if they are swayed one way or the other to take a prescribed psychotropic drug?
> > C. How does that statement compare with the statement by Phillipa?
> > Lou
> > here is the link to the post;
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/838.html
>
> Friends,
> In appraising what could or could not be an exaggereation, in particular in a mental health community, one could examine;
> A. Who are the people that the statement could cause a reader to do and what could those people do after reading the statement?
> B. To what degree of harm, could the generalizatiion, if it is a generization, cause?
> Let us look at an historical parallel.
> In Hitler's fantasy, generalization resulted in mass-murder by the use of scapegoating and propaganda directed toward groups to arrouse ill-will against those groups. The historical record of Geobbles and Stryker are filled with exaggerations and overgeneralizations. You can email me for those if you like.
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
> But what is the harm to anyone here concerning Phillipa's use of {more often than not}? Will groups of people be persecuted from her posting here her figurative ideas about a blood-pressure cuff?
> LouFriends,
I cited {Stryker} whose name is spelled correctly as;
Julius Streicher
Here is a link to a posed portrait of Julius Streicher shortly before his execution as being convicted as a Nazi war criminal.
Lou
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=99366&rendTypeId=4
Posted by Deputy Dinah on December 31, 2007, at 9:11:26
In reply to Lou's rsponse to Jamal's post-rely?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2007, at 8:40:08
> Here in this forum, I could email you, if you like, statements posted here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that are left to stand here. I could also show you the harm that those statements could cause.
Please do not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
You've been asked not to do this before, so I'm going to block you from posting for one week.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
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.