![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 32 to 56 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 10:46:48
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Dinah's post-part 2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 21, 2002, at 10:46:34
Dinah,
You wrote that Dr. Bob has made the rules to "keep a certian atmosphere." Could you clarify what you mean by that statement in relation to the following questions,or any thing else you would like to include in your response? If you could do that, then I will have a better understanding of the rules of this board and their rationals, and I will be better able to compose my posts to accomodate those rules and rationals.
1)Could you clarify if it is my post, only, that I want to post about that I was told by the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, that I should have no other Gods before Him, is the sole post that you think would change the "atmosphere" or if a post like, "I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, would not change the atmospher of this board? That was posted on the faith board by another poster and I did not see any change in atmosphere to the board, but if I missed a change, could you point the posts out to me that seemed to be a change in the atmospher due to the posting of that post?
2) Could you tell me what the "certian atmospher" is that would be changed and why the new atmospher, that could result from the change, could not ,possibly, be a better atmospher for the board, or are you saying that change , in and of itself bad?
If you could clarify that, and distinguish whether your post here is your own thoughts or the thoughts that you are putting forth as a reprsentative of the administration of Psycho-Babble, as your status as a board deputy, then I will have a better idea of how the rules operate in regards to one that seeks change to existing policys.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2002, at 11:22:26
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-part 2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 10:46:48
Ahh, Lou. Of course I am responding as myself. I am not part of the administration of this board, and my duties as deputy are few and well defined by Dr. Bob. I have rarely used them in fact.
My post was made on the basis of the oft cited rules of civility prepared by Dr. Bob, and my second post was merely a statement of agreement in principle with those rules, and one example of a site where those rules were not in place.
I am not going to make judgements about the posters on that site as opposed to the posters on this site. I don't think it was a question of posters as much as it was of site guidelines.
I'm sorry I cannot help you more, Lou. Specific questions have to be addressed to Dr. Bob. I was just offering you empathy concerning your dilemma, which has been shared by many others attempting to communicate their faith on the faith board.
All I can offer is a guess, and I did write out some of what I guessed would be ok, and what wouldn't. But I erased it because I would have just been guessing and that wouldn't have been fair to you.
I wish you the best of luck in telling your story.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 12:20:54
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-part 2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2002, at 11:22:26
Dinah,
Thank you for responding to some of my concerns. Dr. Bob says in his opening page that he has mixed feelings about having board deputys, like youself, and I agree that I also have mixed feelings about it , for I do not want your status as a board deputy to be a wedge between us as being both discusants on this forum.
Also, you mentioned that you made up a list if your ideas and then discarded them.
I was wondering if you would do me a favor and reconstruct your list and email them to me for I beleive that you have good ideas and that there may be something in your list that would be benifitial in regards to what we have been discussing.
If you could do that, I would be appreciative of your concern.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:22:51
In reply to Lou does respect the views of others » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 21, 2002, at 6:32:47
Friends,
The question of a person telling of their faith here has come up and I would like to share with you what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this subject.
The case began when some people were told that they were being disrespectfull to others if they followed one of their tenents of their religious beliefs. The group fought the people that were punishing them for following one of their beliefs all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and the court ruled on whether someone could be accused of disrespecting others if they followed one of their beliefs. I will tell yu, next about that Supreme Court Rulling
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:35:38
In reply to Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:22:51
Friends,
The case involved one group's speech in relation to the other group accusing them of being disrespecful to them for following one of their groups tenants of their religion involving speech and whether their speech disrespected the other group by their speech.
The case began around 1942 and has since established the rulling on whether one person's speech disrespects another person if the person's speech involved their faith. I beleive that this case is relevant on this board because that subject is now being discussed and I believe that it is an issue here that needs to be openly discussed so that the posters here will have this infomation to include in any posts that they may make relavant to this discussion.
Next: The case
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:48:29
In reply to Re: Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:35:38
Friends,
The case began when a group of students were being expelled by a school district for following one of their religious beliefs. Also , a teacher was firerd for following his same belief.
The group was an unpopular religious group in that community, but I still admire to this day their great courage for challenging the expullsions of their children because they followed one of their religious tenants.
The school district's argument for expelling the students was that what they said, which was a tenant that they followed in their religion, was disrespecting to others. There were three issues decieded by the Supreme Court of the United States that today are a beacon of light.
Next, the issues.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 15:23:31
In reply to Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 14:48:29
Friends,
The case began when a student of the unpopular religion in that community refused to stand and recite what is called the pledge of alligiance to the flag.(hearafter just called the pledge).
The school disticts argument was that by not standing and reciting the pledge, the student was disrespectfull to the others.
Not so!, said the court. The court rulled,(1) "To compell a person to say that they Must speak, is just as violative to their civil rights as telling a person that they can not speak.
(2) To say that because they do not stand or speak and that they thearfore are disrespecting to those that pledge was poo-pooed by the court. Also, the court said that the school could not requirer the students that followed their religious tenant to not salut flags, which is their right to free speech,to go outside the room when the pldge was recited. They had a right to not speak and any action as a result of their excercising thir right to free speech is a violation of their civil rights guarnteed by the Constitution of the United States.
(3) No one has the right to establish what is orthodox in religion (or polotics).
The teacher won, and he just said that his concience prohibited him from saluting flags and that his refusal does not mean that he is disrespectfull to anyone any more than the pledgers were being disrespectfull to him.
God Bless America,
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 16:04:42
In reply to Re: Lou does respect theviews of others-Supreme Court, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 15:23:31
Lou.
You are still missing the point that i have bene trying to show you.
You were not warned by anyone, including Dr Bob, for sharing you religious beliefs.
You called those of us who do not believe in god fools. You offended ME with this statement. You offended others with this statement.
Dr Bob pointed out that this was disrespectful.Please consider this.
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 22, 2002, at 9:08:00
> you aren't LISTENING to what is posted to YOU. You talk and you talk but you don't listen at all. We ALL said that the word "fools" is not acceptable under the civility guidelines but you just go on and on about the Rider, ignoring that your question has been answered over and over.
Please remember not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, OK? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
> > you aren't LISTENING to what is posted to YOU. You talk and you talk but you don't listen at all. We ALL said that the word "fools" is not acceptable under the civility guidelines but you just go on and on about the Rider, ignoring that your question has been answered over and over.
>
> Please remember not to post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, OK? Thanks,
>
> Bob
What's not civil here ?1) Lou does not listen to others, he just asks questions
2) He does go on and on
3) "Fools" enough said
4) His questions are answered and he sill asks
the question againSometimes a rose is a rose, and there is no other way to discribe it
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 18:11:42
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
> What's not civil here ?
>
> Sometimes a rose is a rose, and there is no other way to discribe itIf your description is a negative one, then it's more supportive of the rose just to refrain from describing it. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 18:47:15
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 18:11:42
Ah ! I thought the PBC went to Nikki, now I see it was tina. They were saying the same thing, but I can detect (slightly) how one was less civil than the other.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
In reply to Lou, Lou, Lou.., posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 16:04:42
NikkiT2,
You asked me to please consider your post. I consider all posts here valuable and I am considering it as you have requested.
There is disagreement here , now. And reasonable men and women can disagree. Disagreeing is a natural aspect of communication.
You wrote that "Dr. Bob pointed out..."
I do not consider anyone infallible,including myself. I like what ISO M said, when she said that all of us have come short of hitting the target all of the time. We are all far from being infallible.
So NikkiT2, let us let some time run between us and , perhaps, either I or you may see things in a different light. Untill then,
Peace be upon you,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 20:03:48
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
Oracle,
Good evening. I read your post and I was looking forward to having a discussion with you because you have posted some other posts that were intriguing to me.
In regards to the discusson at hand, do you have anything that you could post to enlighten our perspectives about this disagreement? If you could post anything , I would appreciate it for I consider your input valuable, and all others also.
Lou
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » tina, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:41:26
I have explained very succinctly the general objection to the word "fools" as it was used in YOUR post and will not elaborate further simply because it isn't necessary.
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:39:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
I don't need time as I am not angry. I am just trying to poin tout that no one attcked you for your views on god or your experience, just for calling poeple fools.
Please try to understand this.
Nikki
Posted by mair on October 23, 2002, at 7:51:48
In reply to Re: I won't be baited » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
I think (my opinion only), that you were being baited and I applaud your restrained response.
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
NikkiT2,
There is disagreement , now, not about what the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experince, said to the man that said that there is no God, but about whether or not I will be restrained to say that the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, said to me, "you shall have no other Gods before me."
I disagree with the moderator's position to restrain me from posting that , for I beleive that others are allowed here to post that they believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost without restraint upon them and that I will be restrained if I post that my religion requirers Me to believe in only one God. There are other religions besides judaism that also believe in only one God. I do not asking for special rights, but (equal) rights and I am objecting to the fact that I have been told that I will be restrained from posting that I have been told that I must believe in only one God.
I am not telling people here that believe in many Gods that the can not do that. I am not telling people here that they can not beleive that God in what christiandom calls a "trinity". I am not telling people here that they can not beleve in no God at all. Dr. Bob quoted the bible in one of his posts. I am not restraing him from posting what the word of God said to him or others that quote their bible here.
Someone here recently quoted the bible," For with the heart one exercises faith for rightiousness..." No one is trying to restrain that poster from posting that. She has a God-given right, an American-right and a human right to express what she believes about her God without beng accused of disrespecting others , and I am saying that so do I.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
OK, one final time.
You were not told to stop saying the stuff about only one god. You were not told to stop posting your experience.
You *were* asked not to post stuff that others might feel offended by, such as calling those that don't believe in god fools.
You called *me* a fool. You called others fools.
That is all this is about. Nothing more.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
nikkiT2,
I'm sorry, but the disagreement , now, here, is about that I will be restrained from posting that the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me", and I object to being restrained from posting what the Word of God said to me, who is the Rider, and others are not restrained in quotng their bible verses, including Dr. Bob.
It is plainly visible on this thread and you can look at the posts in front of your post here to see them. You can also examine the faith board and read the posts of those posting their bible quotes. At your request, I will compile a list of URLs for your viewing to show you what is involved in this disagreement.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
Lou, I'm confused. Can you show me the link to where Dr. Bob said you couldn't say that the Rider said to you that you should have no other gods before god?
All I saw was the please be civil about the statement containing the word "fools". It would be very helpful to me if you could link the other limitation you are speaking of.
Actually, I think you must have been doing very well staying within Dr. Bob's guidelines because you were able to post quite a long thread about your experiences without any objection at all from Dr. Bob. Until the "fools" quote.
So I am really really confused as to why you think Dr. Bob is not allowing you to post your experience.
Just a simple link to where he said that is all I need to clarify it for me. But without that link, I am totally lost.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:07:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
Dinah,
Below is tha link from Dr. Bob saying that he will restrain me from saying that my God told me not to have any other Gods before Him:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7716.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
No Lou, you misunderstand.
No one objected to you saying "Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me". Not one single person as I can see, and yes, I have read all the posts on this thread, and in the faith board.
What we objected to was you saying "The Rider turned to us and said, "Only a fool, in his heart, says that there is no God."
They are very different statements.
If someone else had posted saying their god had said this, or their gods messenger or who ever, I would have been offended then too.
I hope you now understand.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:30:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
NikkiT2,
Dr. Bob has posted that if I say that I should have no other Gods befor me, that he has a rule that restrains me from saying that ab=nd he will accuse me of being disrespectfull and I am disagreeing with him because he allows others , and himself, to quote the bible which christiandom people consider to be The Word of God and they are not accused of being disrespectfull. I object to Dr. Bobs applying his rule to me and not to the bible quoting people, and I have requested for him to provide me with his rational that makes that descrimination.
The link is in the post above this post that I answered Dinah's request to post the link to. It has Dr. Bob aswering my queston to whether or not I will be restrained from posting that I was told to have no other Gods before me.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.