![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 78. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on July 20, 2013, at 13:00:34
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 2:53:39
My thought exactly.
Posted by jane d on July 21, 2013, at 1:19:24
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 19, 2013, at 7:27:53
> It is not so much a competition of egos as it is a battle to keep Psycho-Babble inviting and relevant.
I don't think a battle of any kind does that.
> I am more interested in reducing pain. Yes, it does pain me when people have panic attacks as the direct result of Lou Pilder's posts of falsehoods and hyperbole.So if they have a panic attack on reading something you think is true that's ok? There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
>It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
>I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat. The internet has changed over the years. I've seen posting drop off in any number of forums with all different forms of moderation. I remember the excitement I felt when I discovered babble. I think it was largely because I'd never seen anything at all like it before. But I don't think it's possible for anyone to feel that way about babble now even though I wish they could. Even if they are new here they aren't new to the internet and the idea of having information and human contact at their fingertips.
> > and that may force you to take positions it could be hard to retreat from.
>
> This is a good point. I try to acknowledge my mistakes and apologize for them when applicable. I'm not always successful.You do well at it.
>
> What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
>It really shouldn't matter what I personally think of Lou's posts. As it happens he is one of several people who's posts I rarely read. I have decided that they are unlikely to contain any information of interest to me and they annoy me so I tend to skip them. I also think that everybody else should be able to choose for themselves whether to read or not read them. I do believe that even new posters here are sophisticated enough to understand where Lou is coming from - he's very upfront about it. They will seek out other points of view if that is what they want. Those views are already well represented all over this board.
Posted by SLS on July 21, 2013, at 6:52:24
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » SLS, posted by jane d on July 21, 2013, at 1:19:24
Just a few things.
> There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
Does censorship have a place?
> > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
> I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
> > What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
> It really shouldn't matter what I personally think of Lou's posts.I think it matters. It helps to understand posting dynamics. Why would you not want to volunteer this information? Is each man an island?
> As it happens he is one of several people who's posts I rarely read. I have decided that they are unlikely to contain any information of interest to me and they annoy me so I tend to skip them.
Do you think that there should be unqualified freedom of speech here?
> I also think that everybody else should be able to choose for themselves whether to read or not read them.
How would one come to decide such a thing if they had not yet read them?
You make a great deal of sense.
Let me see if I can make some adjustments.
Thanks.
I think Dr. Bob should either delete the specifications of overgeneralization and exaggeration as sanctionable content in his FAQ or explain why Lou Pilder's posts fail to qualify for such sanctions.
- Scott
Posted by jane d on July 22, 2013, at 2:42:37
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 21, 2013, at 6:52:24
>I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?You may be right about the definition. That wasn't what I meant by it. It's too late tonight for me to try and explain what I DID mean but I did not mean you were doing that.
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2013, at 6:43:01
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » SLS, posted by jane d on July 22, 2013, at 2:42:37
> >I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
> You may be right about the definition. That wasn't what I meant by it.
>
> It's too late tonight for me to try and explain what I DID mean but I did not mean you were doing that.The origin of the term "scapegoat" is quite interesting. Lou Pilder can correct me if I am wrong. In the days of old, it was a tradition of Jews on the Yom Kippur holiday to choose two goats to perform rituals that were designed to cleans the community of sin. The first goat was chosen by lottery to be slaughtered. This sacrifice was meant to atone for the sins of the community. Once atoned for, the sins could then be removed. It was the remaining goat that would become the scapegoat. All of the sins were ritually transferred to this one goat. The scapegoat was then released into the wilderness to wander, taking with it the sins of Israel.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 21:26:47
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 21, 2013, at 6:52:24
> > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
>
> The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others.> I think Dr. Bob should either delete the specifications of overgeneralization and exaggeration as sanctionable content in his FAQ or explain why Lou Pilder's posts fail to qualify for such sanctions.
1. If anybody thinks anybody else might be overgeneralizing or exaggerating, they can notify me and we can discuss it.
2. I don't think of scapegoating as necessarily conscious. IMO, for example, it could be considered scapegoating to see Lou as the only one who overgeneralizes and exaggerates. Which is why I keep asking others to be careful what they ask for.
Bob
Posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:45:49
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 21, 2013, at 6:52:24
I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
> > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
>
> Does censorship have a place?My preference is to have as little as possible. Especially of content as opposed to style. I'm not going to waste time in defending anyones right to use a particular word in this setting.
>
> > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
>
> > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
>
> The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.
I wasn't however using the term scapegoat to try and force shutdown of your discussion. I meant it to be part of my argument. It wasn't your treatment of Lou that made me think of scapegoating - it was the strength of your apparent belief that driving Lou into the wilderness (or his posts) would somehow take away the problem of low posting volume. And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.
> > > What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
>
> > It really shouldn't matter what I per>
> I think it matters. It helps to understand posting dynamics. Why would you not want to volunteer this information? Is each man an island?
>
> > As it happens he is one of several people who's posts I rarely read. I have decided that they are unlikely to contain any information of interest to me and they annoy me so I tend to skip them.
>
> Do you think that there should be unqualified freedom of speech here?I was not in favor of the stricter civility rules when posters first started arguing for them years ago. For the most part I could live with them however and they mattered a lot to some posters who I respected. And they didn't go far enough for some.
>
> > I also think that everybody else should be able to choose for themselves whether to read or not read them.
>
> How would one come to decide such a thing if they had not yet read them?Have they really changed that much over the years? My spot checks suggest not. Yes - I could miss something someday. I have found my impressions of some posters changing over the years - often for the better. Those discoveries can be one of the perks of hanging around a place for a long time. But I'm ok with missing posts that I might have liked. I no longer feel I have to read every single one and that makes my life much easier.
>
> You make a great deal of sense.
>
> Let me see if I can make some adjustments.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I think Dr. Bob should either delete the specifications of overgeneralization and exaggeration as sanctionable content in his FAQ or explain why Lou Pilder's posts fail to qualify for such sanctions.The overgeneralizations/exaggerations part of the rules was always one of the parts I had the biggest problem with. But I'm OK with the FAQ not keeping up with the reality of the rules on babble. In that way I think it's like real life where unofficial changes usually come first and then eventually the official rules catch up.
Posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:49:18
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 22, 2013, at 6:43:01
> The origin of the term "scapegoat" is quite interesting. Lou Pilder can correct me if I am wrong. In the days of old, it was a tradition of Jews on the Yom Kippur holiday to choose two goats to perform rituals that were designed to cleans the community of sin. The first goat was chosen by lottery to be slaughtered. This sacrifice was meant to atone for the sins of the community. Once atoned for, the sins could then be removed. It was the remaining goat that would become the scapegoat. All of the sins were ritually transferred to this one goat. The scapegoat was then released into the wilderness to wander, taking with it the sins of Israel.
>You're right. It is interesting. I looked it up after I first (mis)used it. And I think I got my goats confused. I hadn't realized before that there were two of them.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2013, at 7:19:34
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » SLS, posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:45:49
> I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
>
> > > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
> >
> > Does censorship have a place?
>
> My preference is to have as little as possible. Especially of content as opposed to style. I'm not going to waste time in defending anyones right to use a particular word in this setting.
> >
> > > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
> >
> > > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
> >
> > The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
>
> I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.
>
> I wasn't however using the term scapegoat to try and force shutdown of your discussion. I meant it to be part of my argument. It wasn't your treatment of Lou that made me think of scapegoating - it was the strength of your apparent belief that driving Lou into the wilderness (or his posts) would somehow take away the problem of low posting volume. And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.
>
> > > > What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
> >
> > > It really shouldn't matter what I per
>
> >
> > I think it matters. It helps to understand posting dynamics. Why would you not want to volunteer this information? Is each man an island?
> >
> > > As it happens he is one of several people who's posts I rarely read. I have decided that they are unlikely to contain any information of interest to me and they annoy me so I tend to skip them.
> >
> > Do you think that there should be unqualified freedom of speech here?
>
> I was not in favor of the stricter civility rules when posters first started arguing for them years ago. For the most part I could live with them however and they mattered a lot to some posters who I respected. And they didn't go far enough for some.
>
> >
> > > I also think that everybody else should be able to choose for themselves whether to read or not read them.
> >
> > How would one come to decide such a thing if they had not yet read them?
>
> Have they really changed that much over the years? My spot checks suggest not. Yes - I could miss something someday. I have found my impressions of some posters changing over the years - often for the better. Those discoveries can be one of the perks of hanging around a place for a long time. But I'm ok with missing posts that I might have liked. I no longer feel I have to read every single one and that makes my life much easier.
>
> >
> > You make a great deal of sense.
> >
> > Let me see if I can make some adjustments.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I think Dr. Bob should either delete the specifications of overgeneralization and exaggeration as sanctionable content in his FAQ or explain why Lou Pilder's posts fail to qualify for such sanctions.
>
> The overgeneralizations/exaggerations part of the rules was always one of the parts I had the biggest problem with. But I'm OK with the FAQ not keeping up with the reality of the rules on babble. In that way I think it's like real life where unofficial changes usually come first and then eventually the official rules catch up.
>
> Friends,
Jane wrote,[...I think here Lou has been made the classical scapegoat...I am very uncomfortable labeling any one poster as the cause...].
I appreciate Jane's statement as what she says can be seen by her and felt by her and is willing for her to post what she is experiencing when reading the posts about me here. And there are years of outstanding notifications/requests from me ere to Mr. Hsiung
There is historical parallel here that I am prevented from posting about due to prohibitions made to me by Mr. Hsiung. And readers be advised that there are numerous prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung that I am abiding by. You may read here that there is a statement that could mean that the poster is saying that my posts are overgeneralizations and/or exaggerations. Mr Hsiung states that he IS enforcing his rules here.
You see, is it specified as to what posts of mine constitute overgeneralization/exaggeration? This could mean that any or all of my posts constitute such, could it not?
What is plainly visible is that since there is not a specification in this thread as to what posts of mine constitute such, then readers IMHO could see me in what is called a {false light}, since the readers here could think that any of my posts fall into that category.
In a previous post, it is brought up that I use the {generally accepted} number of deaths last year from psychotropic drugs to be 42,000. If that is overgeneralizing or exaggeration, then one could do a search in Google by using,[psychiatric drugs, deaths, 42000] and get pages upon pages of articles using that figure from different sources. The figure comes from recorded deaths in the U.S. You could do the same search for the United Kingdom, or Sweden, or Canada in particular and see their deaths there from psychotropic drugs.
You see, I have come here to save lives, free people from addiction and depression and prevent life-ruining conditions. I am prevented from posting here what could lead those out of the darkness of depression and addiction due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
I have seen one criticism (that failed) of a paper written that uses the facts that I post here that was written by a group to alert parents that giving children mind-altering drugs could kill their child. And in that article, when they got to the 42000, they DID NOT DISPUTE the number at all.
And yesterday I read of a famous TV personality that died at a young age from taking heroin and alcohol together, like I have been warning here of taking two CNS depressant drugs together. You see, there is a GREAT DECEPTION that I am prevented from posting about here. But I say to you, that death from these drugs is no exaggeration, my friends, and the number of 42000 deaths per year will go up, statistically that is, as long as people are led to believe that it will be, or may be, good for this community as a whole to have my notifications here remain outstanding. For you see, if they were responded to, then I could have the opportunity to respond to whatever Mr Hsiung posts as his response, which I think would be good for not only this community, but to give readers the opportunity to see facts that could make the difference between accepting what the TV commercials from the drug companies say or not. This then,
>
Posted by SLS on July 24, 2013, at 7:22:35
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » SLS, posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:45:49
> I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
That's okay. It gave me time to think.
> > > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.> > Does censorship have a place?
> My preference is to have as little as possible.Is that a yes? :-)
> > > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
> > > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.> > The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
> I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.I think that if every inquiry into cause-and-effect were to be regarded as an attempt at scapegoating, nothing would ever get done in society. There would be no such thing as a pursuit of equity and safety. There would be no assignment of responsibility.
> And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.I guess I wasn't careful enough to avoid presenting myself as being certain of causality. I have my suspicions and theories, but my using the words "inquiry" and "possibility" in previous posts certainly does not equate to certitude.
It would be convenient if the posting behavior of others had no effect on the size of the community. In such a case, nothing need be done by the moderator.
The rapidity with which posting has decreased is interesting. Perhaps it's a summer thing.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2013, at 9:37:23
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » jane d, posted by SLS on July 24, 2013, at 7:22:35
> > I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
>
> That's okay. It gave me time to think.
>
> > > > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
>
> > > Does censorship have a place?
>
> > My preference is to have as little as possible.
>
> Is that a yes? :-)
>
> > > > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
>
> > > > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
>
> > > The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
>
> > I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.
>
> I think that if every inquiry into cause-and-effect were to be regarded as an attempt at scapegoating, nothing would ever get done in society. There would be no such thing as a pursuit of equity and safety. There would be no assignment of responsibility.
>
> > And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.
>
> I guess I wasn't careful enough to avoid presenting myself as being certain of causality. I have my suspicions and theories, but my using the words "inquiry" and "possibility" in previous posts certainly does not equate to certitude.
>
> It would be convenient if the posting behavior of others had no effect on the size of the community. In such a case, nothing need be done by the moderator.
>
> The rapidity with which posting has decreased is interesting. Perhaps it's a summer thing.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
For so much time and space has been used here to write about what I post here. Be advised that I am under many prohibition that prevent me from responding to what is posted about me here. Yet today, the following posted here stands that I am prevented from responding to in the manner that I think could free me from what is said about me here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. So the following statement will go on and on, that as long as it stands, could lead others to discount what I am writing about here that IMHHHO could mark the difference between readers , and reader's children being a live person or a corpse. Let us look at the statement posted here:[...that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree of frequency...].
Here I am being held up to the community and to readers of this site as a person that could be connected to the real or imagined ills of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held or induce hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against me. This could then also generate hatred toward me and that hate could be transferred in the hater to compel them to kill themselves and/or others as psychologists write that you can see in a search like,[psychology, hate].
So what will it profit anyone here to have this posted about me, over and over, and I am prevented from posting my response here due to the prohibitions made to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
I am willing to post my response to whatever I am posting that you think is exaggerating/over-generalizing and accusative as said about me here. For I come here to save lives and reveal the Day that you can overcome addiction and depression. I am hampered here to do that, and IMHHHHHO, the deaths here of members
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2013, at 10:11:07
In reply to Lou's response-dethofmemburz, posted by Lou Pilder on July 24, 2013, at 9:37:23
> > > I'm sorry about the long delay in replying.
> >
> > That's okay. It gave me time to think.
> >
> > > > > There's a problem with judging things by people's emotional response to them since we all respond to different things.
> >
> > > > Does censorship have a place?
> >
> > > My preference is to have as little as possible.
> >
> > Is that a yes? :-)
> >
> > > > > > It also pains me to ponder the possibility that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree and frequency.
> >
> > > > > I think here Lou is being made the classical scapegoat.
> >
> > > > The scapegoat explanation has become the default argument against investigating cause-and-effect and social responsibility regarding the posting behaviors of Lou Pilder. I was under the impression that scapegoating involves intent; to knowingly blame or punish someone for the acts of others. What is it about my treatment of Lou Pilder that would lead you to characterize it as scapegoating rather than being an inquiry into cause-and-effect and the enforcement of website rules of conduct?
> >
> > > I admit I am very uncomfortable with a discussion labeling any one poster as the cause of Babble's problems. It doesn't really meet my own internal standards of civility. But it is in keeping with my anti censorship beliefs.
> >
> > I think that if every inquiry into cause-and-effect were to be regarded as an attempt at scapegoating, nothing would ever get done in society. There would be no such thing as a pursuit of equity and safety. There would be no assignment of responsibility.
> >
> > > And somewhere in there I think that the strength of your feelings for what Babble has been in the past, the strength of your objections to Lou's posts, have somehow become blurred into a certainty that Lou is a major cause of what you don't like about babble. And it's that causality I think is doubtful.
> >
> > I guess I wasn't careful enough to avoid presenting myself as being certain of causality. I have my suspicions and theories, but my using the words "inquiry" and "possibility" in previous posts certainly does not equate to certitude.
> >
> > It would be convenient if the posting behavior of others had no effect on the size of the community. In such a case, nothing need be done by the moderator.
> >
> > The rapidity with which posting has decreased is interesting. Perhaps it's a summer thing.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> For so much time and space has been used here to write about what I post here. Be advised that I am under many prohibition that prevent me from responding to what is posted about me here. Yet today, the following posted here stands that I am prevented from responding to in the manner that I think could free me from what is said about me here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. So the following statement will go on and on, that as long as it stands, could lead others to discount what I am writing about here that IMHHHO could mark the difference between readers , and reader's children being a live person or a corpse. Let us look at the statement posted here:
>
> [...that posting activity has dropped off significantly as Lou Pilder has been allowed to post exaggerations, over-generalizations, and accusations to a greater degree of frequency...].
>
> Here I am being held up to the community and to readers of this site as a person that could be connected to the real or imagined ills of this community. This could decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which I am held or induce hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against me. This could then also generate hatred toward me and that hate could be transferred in the hater to compel them to kill themselves and/or others as psychologists write that you can see in a search like,[psychology, hate].
> So what will it profit anyone here to have this posted about me, over and over, and I am prevented from posting my response here due to the prohibitions made to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
> I am willing to post my response to whatever I am posting that you think is exaggerating/over-generalizing and accusative as said about me here. For I come here to save lives and reveal the Day that you can overcome addiction and depression. I am hampered here to do that, and IMHHHHHO, the deaths here of members
>
may not have happened if they were allowed to hear me. You can see how the drugs promoted here to them, some of them young people and their dreams have ended, were involved in some of their deaths, as in what one posted as accidental overdose, another as changing from one drug to another, and others that are posted here. And there are many posters missing. Do you not think that some have died? I have been asked to post about one of the deaths here, but I want to hear from the family first. You see readers here, I am prohibited to post from my perspective here, which comes from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, that IMHHHHO could free you from the fear of being killed by the drugs promoted here. And more than that, you could know the truths that I am being prevented from posting here that could lead you out of the Troubled Sea that I see many tossed to and fro here in the mire and dirt of depression and addiction. If I was not prohibited from posting what is prohibited to me by Mr Hsiung, then it is my great conviction that many could leave the raging sea of depression and addiction and be transferred to stand on a Sea of Glass, calm and peaceful, and have a new life free from addiction and depression. You see, when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, he said to me as I was shown The Sea of Glass, "The glass was made form extreme heat of the sand of the sea. You were once in the raging sea and I have refined you in The Furnace of Affliction to have the waves stilled and be no more tossed to and fro."
Posted by sigismund on July 24, 2013, at 17:43:47
In reply to Origin of term scapegoat » SLS, posted by jane d on July 24, 2013, at 2:49:18
In Lhasa they used to do much the same with just one goat. And might still do.
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2013, at 6:05:29
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 18, 2013, at 3:21:16
> > 3. It occurs to me that you and Lou may have something in common: anxiety about Babble. Lou seemed worried about abuse of power, and you seem worried about everyone leaving. There might be anxiety about me, too. Am I going to abuse my power? Am I going to leave?
> Your power is limited. You have the power to reduce posting activity rapidly and to shut the board down entirely. What you don't seem to have the power to do is to increase posting activity with the same rapidity with which you can decrease it. It takes years to build up a following. It takes only a few days to chase everyone away. Once enough people leave, there is nothing to return to should someone contemplate posting here again. People looking for education and support are likely to find it elsewhere, as Psycho-Babble now has only Lou Pilder and discussions about Lou Pilder to offer.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1048240.html
- Scott
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 9, 2013, at 7:20:30
In reply to Re: anxiety about Babble and me, posted by sigismund on July 19, 2013, at 20:13:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures
What did you think passing children through the fire to Moloch by sorcerers in the old testament was Siggo?You do pick the oddest causes. But I like a man who is embarrassed by tactlessness. I imagine you blushing as you read my post.
> >What do you think of Lou Pilder's posts?
>
> The only time the content has ever angered or hurt me was when he mentioned (the Biblical prohibition on) sorcerers, and for me that covered the whole gamut of native American cultures and was difficult to see outside a framework of American exceptionalism, which was odd coming from Lou. Major genocide when it comes to the Americas and Australia.
>
> When some distressed mother (for example) asks what to do with her sick child I feel embarrassed to see so little tact and sensitivity and so much self absorption.
Posted by sigismund on August 12, 2013, at 17:50:37
In reply to Against Sorcerors » sigismund, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 9, 2013, at 7:20:30
>What did you think passing children through the fire to Moloch by sorcerers in the old testament was Siggo?
Haven't a clue. I rarely/never dip into the Old Testament except for Ecclesiastes. I recall Moloch, but just the name. Do you want to inform me?
I haven't blushed yet but I feel I might. I have read about the remarkable culture of the Aztecs. Big place, the Americas.
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 22, 2013, at 9:18:38
In reply to Re: Against Sorcerors » HomelyCygnet, posted by sigismund on August 12, 2013, at 17:50:37
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/photogalleries/mummy-pictures/photo2.html
The word Amerindian makes me grumpy. Amerigo Vespucci was Italian and the Indians are in India.
Who do you think braided the girl's hair? Her mother?
Posted by HomelyCygnet on August 22, 2013, at 9:41:39
In reply to Re: Against Sorcerors » sigismund, posted by HomelyCygnet on August 22, 2013, at 9:18:38
The Inca children were drugged with coca leaves and alcohol before the sacrifice.
In America poor children are often drugged to make them eligible for financial benefits by enhancing their claim to be "mentally disabled".
Their own parents collude in this and the doctors who are available to the poor.
Of course children that are quirky or hurt or different or creative or defiant are often drugged too, sacrificed in a way to the idea of normal promoted by Big Pharma, the DSM etc etc etc
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/photogalleries/mummy-pictures/photo2.html
>
> The word Amerindian makes me grumpy. Amerigo Vespucci was Italian and the Indians are in India.
> Who do you think braided the girl's hair? Her mother?
>
>
>
Posted by homelycygnet on August 25, 2013, at 16:16:31
In reply to Re: Against Sorcerors » HomelyCygnet, posted by sigismund on August 12, 2013, at 17:50:37
we're beggin you please please please no mas
Thanking you in advance
Cygi
Posted by sigismund on August 25, 2013, at 17:54:00
In reply to Pleaaaaaase put down the white mans burden » sigismund, posted by homelycygnet on August 25, 2013, at 16:16:31
I gather you are off?
I agree it is not nice to talk about Lou in front of him, though there are reasons for that (other than scapegoating!).
Drawing back to fit more into the frame makes many things clearer.
I'm enjoying this now....
"From the Ruins of Empire" by Pankaj Mishra.
Posted by HomelyCygnet on October 3, 2013, at 10:29:45
In reply to Re: Pleaaaaaase put down the white mans burden » homelycygnet, posted by sigismund on August 25, 2013, at 17:54:00
The Aztecs responded to their increasing problems of food supply by intensifying agricultural production with a variety of ingenious techniques, including the reclamation of soil from marsh and lake bottoms in the chinampa, or floating garden, method. Unfortunately, their ingenuity could not correct their lack of a suitable domesticable herbivore that could provide animal protein and fats. Hence, the ecological situation of the Aztecs and their Mesoamerican neighbors was unique among the world's major civilizations. I have recently proposed the theory that large-scale cannibalism, disguised as sacrifice, was the natural consequence of these ecological circumstances.
The contrast between Mesoamerica and the Andes, in terms of the existence of domesticated herbivores, was also reflected in the numbers of human victims sacrificed in the two areas. In the huge Andean Inca empire, the other major political entity in the New world at the time of the conquest, annual human sacrifices apparently amounted to a few hundred at most. Among the Aztecs, the numbers were incomparably greater. The commonly mentioned figure of 20,000, however, is unreliable. For example, one sixteenth-century account states that 20,000 were sacrificed yearly in the capital city alone, another reports this as 20,000 infants, and a third claims the same number as being slaughtered throughout the Aztec empire on a single particular day. The most famous specific sacrifice took place in 1487 at the dedication of the main pyramid in Tenochtitlán. Here, too, figures vary: one source states 20,000, another 72,344, and several give 80,400.In 1946 Sherburne Cook, a demographer specializing in American Indian populations, estimated an over-all annual mean of 15,000 victims in a central Mexican population reckoned at two million. Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year, equivalent to one percent of the total population. According to Borah, this figure is consistent with the sacrifice of an estimated 1,000 to 3,000 persons yearly at the largest of the thousands of temples scattered throughout the Aztec Triple Alliance. The numbers, of course, were fewer at the lesser temples, and may have shaded down to zero at the smallest.
These enormous numbers call for consideration of what the Aztecs did with the bodies after the sacrifices. Evidence of Aztec cannibalism has been largely ignored or consciously or unconsciously covered up. For example, the major twentieth-century books on the Aztecs barely mention it; others bypass the subject completely. Probably some modern Mexicans and anthropologists have been embarrassed by the topic: the former partly for nationalistic reasons; the latter partly out of a desire to portray native peoples in the best possible light. Ironically, both these attitudes may represent European ethnocentrism regarding cannibalism -- a viewpoint to be expected from a culture that has had relatively abundant livestock for meat and milk.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htmAaahh the view from 1977! I googled the man who wrote it and he seems to be claiming to be an expert in shamanism. Thirty percent of Ameranglos claim to have Amerindian blood. Could he be one of them do you suppose?
As always
HomelyCygnet
AmerveganPS Of course I hope it's not necessary to say I don't stand by his numbers or anything else.
Posted by sigismund on October 4, 2013, at 14:46:20
In reply to Ameranglican ethnocentricism » sigismund, posted by HomelyCygnet on October 3, 2013, at 10:29:45
>Thirty percent of Ameranglos claim to have Amerindian blood.
This would not happen here, mutatis mutandis. But then the ideology changed over time. The Spanish were not racist as were the British in Australia. I suppose the US is somewhere in between.
I found the wearing by the warrior of the flayed skin of the victim as he goes around feasting and distributing body parts interesting. For about 5 days continuous perhaps. As you say, the Andean cultures were not so enthusiastic about sacrifice. I found that culture very warm in comparison to my own. A religion with sacrifice as the instrument of redemption......let me start again......it is easy enough to see the Holocaust as the action providing access to a belief system, fruit at the alter of the Fuhrer's genius, it seems so sacrilegious to even say what for a big enough minority was the case......but many Marxist Leninist governments were the same, utopian in nature with sacrifice required, as one might think of the wars then and since. There was an American theologian here talking about culture and bellicosity, I can only recall him talking about sacrifice and the need to make sure it was worthwhile. I don't know who he was, but not Spong. Need I add that Australia has been involved in every war since the Boer war. But the US was doing interesting things back then that I will have to read about.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:51:46
In reply to Re: Ameranglican ethnocentricism » HomelyCygnet, posted by sigismund on October 4, 2013, at 14:46:20
> the Andean cultures were not so enthusiastic about sacrifice. I found that culture very warm in comparison to my own. A religion with sacrifice as the instrument of redemption......let me start again......it is easy enough to see the Holocaust as the action providing access to a belief system, fruit at the alter of the Fuhrer's genius, it seems so sacrilegious to even say what for a big enough minority was the case......but many Marxist Leninist governments were the same, utopian in nature with sacrifice required, as one might think of the wars then and since. There was an American theologian here talking about culture and bellicosity, I can only recall him talking about sacrifice and the need to make sure it was worthwhile.
Thanks for posting that. You got me thinking about the culture here, where a cygnet is ready to sacrifice himself and the community often seems ready to sacrifice Lou.
Do you see a connection between sacrifice and redemption? And between redemption and sin?
How is conflict handled in the Andean cultures?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on October 5, 2013, at 18:39:41
In reply to Re: sacrifice, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2013, at 15:51:46
>Do you see a connection between sacrifice and redemption? And between redemption and sin?
Well, there is a question and a half! I might try to come back to that later.
>How is conflict handled in the Andean cultures?
What I really noticed was that people did not seem concerned with what other people thought. I walked past a couple of siblings (I think) the other day here and they were doing the predictable thing of arguing about 'what it is'. (It's this! No, it's that!)
Firstly I noticed the greater than usual for us physical contact between babies, kids and parents. They just touch each other a lot. And so kids seem unusually friendly to me. And this extends to a kind of cultural gentleness. When there is conflict, I imagine it to be real violent conflict or more likely simply not acknowledged, not referred to, not acted on. Here people define themselves by their opinions. I will put a link to another post I did following this.
Posted by sigismund on October 5, 2013, at 18:45:18
In reply to Re: sacrifice » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on October 5, 2013, at 18:39:41
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20120327/msgs/1046027.html
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.