![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 7:37:48
DR. Hsiung,
In regards to the statement in question as to the poster being asked to rephrase her statement to make it OK here, the poster prefaced the statement with {I believe}.
The generally accepted meaning of to rephrase a statement is to make it clearer to the reader and there are other meanings. It is my understanding here that when a poster is asked to rephrase a statement, that the new statement will mean something different from the origimal statement to make it clearer and be acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
In this case here, the member left the statement in question the same and added a preface to it. When I read the statement, I feel inferior as a Jew (put down) when I read the member's new statement even with the added preface. Could you include in any reply to me here your rational for indicating that the statement that the member was asked to be rephrased was made to mean something different from the original meaning so that it could be acceptable here, if you are meaning that the member did rephrase the statement in question as to it meaning something different from the original writing so that it is now acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/793756.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 7:40:11
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-(5), posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 7:37:48
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to the statement in question as to the poster being asked to rephrase her statement to make it OK here, the poster prefaced the statement with {I believe}.
> The generally accepted meaning of to rephrase a statement is to make it clearer to the reader and there are other meanings. It is my understanding here that when a poster is asked to rephrase a statement, that the new statement will mean something different from the origimal statement to make it clearer and be acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
> In this case here, the member left the statement in question the same and added a preface to it. When I read the statement, I feel inferior as a Jew (put down) when I read the member's new statement even with the added preface. Could you include in any reply to me here your rational for indicating that the statement that the member was asked to be rephrased was made to mean something different from the original meaning so that it could be acceptable here, if you are meaning that the member did rephrase the statement in question as to it meaning something different from the original writing so that it is now acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum?
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/739756.html
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 10:42:04
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-(5)correction to link, posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 7:40:11
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > In regards to the statement in question as to the poster being asked to rephrase her statement to make it OK here, the poster prefaced the statement with {I believe}.
> > The generally accepted meaning of to rephrase a statement is to make it clearer to the reader and there are other meanings. It is my understanding here that when a poster is asked to rephrase a statement, that the new statement will mean something different from the origimal statement to make it clearer and be acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
> > In this case here, the member left the statement in question the same and added a preface to it. When I read the statement, I feel inferior as a Jew (put down) when I read the member's new statement even with the added preface. Could you include in any reply to me here your rational for indicating that the statement that the member was asked to be rephrased was made to mean something different from the original meaning so that it could be acceptable here, if you are meaning that the member did rephrase the statement in question as to it meaning something different from the original writing so that it is now acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum?
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/739756.html
> >
>
> DR. Hsiung,
The generally accepted meaning of to rephrase a statement is to {word it diferently} so that what is rephrased is made [clearer}.
Since the member quoted a verse from the Christiandom bible,(John 1:17} I do not know how one could {rephrase} a quote of being of what is from someone else, for then if they did change the wording, could it not be seen as not being a quote?
In the past practice here, one wrote that they deleted the post in a similar circumstance. But I am wondering then, if instead of asking a member to rephrase a quote, that the member could be asked to delete the quote?
This then brings up, to me, as to if then there is the potential for one to think that there are {two standards} here so that statements that could have IMO the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to have IMO the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, are allowed to be treated to be deleted, or in the statement in question to have a preface that they believe it added to it, by the poster where statements that could have the potential to lead others then Jews to feel put down are treated differently.
I am asking if you could have dialog with me here so that I can post here those past posts that could have the potential IMO to show that there could be two standards here that could have the potential then IMO to put down Jews by the nature that statments by members that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down are being treated differently than other statements of the same nature about non-Jews.
I feel devalued as a human being when I think that that could be the case here and would like to have dialog with you here to have this clarified.
In the statement in question that you posted that you think it is good for the member to post a preface that they believe the bible quote, IMO has the potential to lead me to think that you are approving the adding of that preface to perhaps other statements that could lead a Jew IMO to feel inferior (put down) and others could IMO think that doing so makes it acceptable here. The conjoining word of the two statments, {but}, could have the potential IMO to mean {without} and since the two statments conjoined have the first being about the law of Moses which Jews believe was given by Moses to the Jews as truth to them, and the second part being about Jesus Christ using {came by}, which could IMO have the potential to mean {after}, could have the potential IMO to lead a Jew, and others that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom, to feel inferior if the statement is allowed to remain as approved here.
I am unsure as to if all the deputies agree with your action in question here and I am asking that any deputy that agrees with me here, if there are those, to post a disclaimer in this thread, that they are not to be included in being one of the deputies that approves the adding of the preface {I believe} to the statement to make it approved here since (we) is used concerning administrative actions.
Lou Pilder
Posted by karen_kay on March 16, 2007, at 11:07:20
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-(5B), posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 10:42:04
hey lou,
i likie you
go and scr$w
that 3 post rule!keep goin buddy!
fondest,
kk
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 16, 2007, at 16:03:01
In reply to hey lou.., posted by karen_kay on March 16, 2007, at 11:07:20
> hey lou,
> i likie you
> go and scr$w
> that 3 post rule!
>
> keep goin buddy!
>
> fondest,
> kkKK,
You wrote,[...hey (L)ou...keep goin...]
What in particular would you like for me to {keep goin} about?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2007, at 6:26:32
In reply to hey lou.., posted by karen_kay on March 16, 2007, at 11:07:20
> hey lou,
> i likie you
> go and scr$w
> that 3 post rule!
>
> keep goin buddy!
>
> fondest,
> kkkk,
In regards to your statement for me to continue here, I would like to post more because there is a lot more to this than what is in this thread so far. The policy for the administration board is that it is fine to discuss the actions taken by the administration and to discuss the policy and if one would want to know Dr. Hsiung's rationale, to just ask him.
My overiding concern is about the {action} that Dr. Hsiung and his deputy have posted here and that the {policy} that could have the potential to be established as I am unsure of the {rationale} that Dr. Hsiung applies to his action in relation to what he has posted that IMO could have the potential to have some think that he is approving the use of the preface {I believe} to a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to make the statement acceptable when the member was asked to rephrase the statement. It is my great fear that others then could think IMO that they could have the approval to post here, let's say, statements from Hitler's [...Kampf...] and preface it with {I believe}. If that could be acceptable here, then there could be the potential IMO for this community to have a different definition of {support and education} that I have to me as a Jew here. For I can not post here that my God has revealed to me a commandment to me that I believe is to me. This IMO could then have the potential to establish two standards here.
The statement in question is one of historical importance in relation to its use for centuries in state-sponsored antisemitism. The conjunction in the statement has the potential IMO to convey a {contrast} to the two statements joined by the conjunction,{but}. There is then the potential IMO for there to be the interpretaion by some others to mean that a {difference} could be implied because of the use of {came by} in the second part of the statement in question. There is the potential IMO for some others to then think that there could be the implication of the first then being obsolete, which IMO has the potential to put down Jews since the law of Moses is the foundation of the Jewish faith.
There are historical parallels in the use of the statement in question that one can email me if they like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
This is the end of the 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.