![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 55. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by so on June 2, 2005, at 22:57:41
I am asking that you write a determination as to whether these post are consistent with the guidelines of the site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/506794.html
("The War on Drugs is a JOKE!!!")http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/506793.html
("...it's a joke how most all governments treat mj users but I ain't laughing. It's a g*dd*mn shame and hypocricy at it's worst.")Is it possible people whose career is to lock people in jail for possessing marijuana contrary to the law could feel put down upon reading such posts? Also, since the majority of legislators in each of the 50 United States, and the majority of Congressional representatives publicly favor current drug laws, could they or their constituents possibly feel put down to read that their legally adopted policies are "hypocricy at it's worst"?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2005, at 15:35:46
In reply to so's request to Dr. Hsiung - drgwrisjk, posted by so on June 2, 2005, at 22:57:41
> Is it possible people whose career is to lock people in jail for possessing marijuana contrary to the law could feel put down upon reading such posts? Also, since the majority of legislators in each of the 50 United States, and the majority of Congressional representatives publicly favor current drug laws, could they or their constituents possibly feel put down to read that their legally adopted policies are "hypocricy at it's worst"?
It's possible. Do you feel put down upon reading them?
Bob
Posted by so on June 3, 2005, at 23:28:56
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2005, at 15:35:46
> > Is it possible people whose career is to lock people in jail for possessing marijuana contrary to the law could feel put down upon reading such posts? Also, since the majority of legislators in each of the 50 United States, and the majority of Congressional representatives publicly favor current drug laws, could they or their constituents possibly feel put down to read that their legally adopted policies are "hypocricy at it's worst"?
>
> It's possible. Do you feel put down upon reading them?
>
> Bob
Do I need to show evidence that I was injured to ask what would be evenhanded enforcement of the rules? I would feel put down by a forum where I was not allowed to accuse people of hypocrisy but where other people are. And I would be confused, because I wouldn't know which perceptions of hypocrisy I am allowed to disclose at this site.I would feel threatened by a forum that allows some accusationss of hypocrisy to stand but where peope are called uncivil for similar allegations about other matters. I would feel threatened because I have an interest in seeing an end to the drug war, and I don't think those prosecuting the war will easily let go of their effort so long as they are widely called hypocrites. It might be easier for the world to back out of an unpopular war if those prosecuting the war were respected for their efforts even though voters might eventually decide on another approach. On the other hand, name calling and rudeness might have contributed to ending the Vietnam War...
I can refactor the question. If we are allowed to call cops hypocrites for enforcing the law, could we call drug dealers hypocrites? If so, could we call all drug dealers hypocrites or maybe just the ones who sell drugs contrary to current laws?
Posted by so on June 4, 2005, at 9:57:41
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 3, 2005, at 23:28:56
I am also requesting that you write a determination as to whether it is acceptable under the terms of this forum to write [now the goverment are talking about making it a class b substance again (pathetic)]. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/507558.htmlIs it acceptable to call any government decision regarding classification of phsychoactive substances [pathetic]? If so, how can we know which decisions about which substances we may call [pathetic]?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2005, at 16:46:05
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 3, 2005, at 23:28:56
> Do I need to show evidence that I was injured
No, it would be enough simply to claim that you were.
Bob
Posted by so on June 4, 2005, at 17:36:49
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2005, at 16:46:05
> > Do I need to show evidence that I was injured
>
> No, it would be enough simply to claim that you were.
>
> BobWould it be enough to claim that my worst enemy might feel put down, or can I only advocate for my own self interest?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 5, 2005, at 3:04:45
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 4, 2005, at 17:36:49
> Would it be enough to claim that my worst enemy might feel put down, or can I only advocate for my own self interest?
Maybe let your worst enemy speak for himself or herself?
Bob
Posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 12:43:04
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 5, 2005, at 3:04:45
> Maybe let your worst enemy speak for himself or herself?
>
> BobOr let you speak for them, if you so choose?
Are you saying you only selectively enforce the policy against writing things that "could offend others"? Or that it is okay to call most people's ideas, such as the policies of a democratically elected government "hypocracy" and "pathetic"?
If so are you assuming that stance because
A. you dislike me or
B. because you dislike those who enforce the drug war and consider it okay to call their policies "hypocricy" and "pathetic" or
C. because it is okay here to call any government policy hypocricy and pathetic
D. some other reason.You wrote that [it would be enough simply to claim that you were (injured)] and I do hereby claim that I feel injured when I notice that you selectively enforce policies, granting a wide exception for those who write things directly offend the policies of a democratic electorate. We might hold diverse views about what laws should be adopted and I might prefer other laws, but once they are adopted, they are my laws, and a person calls me hypocritical and pathetic when they call the laws hypocritical and pathetic.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2005, at 14:11:05
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 12:43:04
So,
You wrote,[...I feel injured when...you electivly enforce policies...].
Could you clarify if any of the following are what you mean as to what the injury is?
A.The injury is a result of being outraged by what you percieve as Dr. Hsiung selectivly enforcing one of his main policies of the forum.
B.The injury is a result of feeling discriminated toward by Dr. Hsiung by him at this time allowing the statement in question that you percieve to be put down by.
C.The injury is a result of feeling humiliated by what you percieve to be two standards here by Dr. Hsiung
D. The injury is a result of you feeling defamed by what you percieve as Dr. Hsiung doing to someone else as also being done to you.
E. The injury is a rsult of you feeling debased by what you percieve as Dr. Hsiung favoring something here that is what you do not believe in.
D. The injury is a result of you feeling that DR. Hsiung could take a different stance if it was someone other than you requesting to him.
E. none of the above
F. a combination of the above
G. all of the above
H. something else
Lou
Posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 15:15:10
In reply to Lou's response to so's post- » so, posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2005, at 14:11:05
Answer: F
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 15:26:04
In reply to Re: So's response to Lou's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 15:15:10
I was wondering when you two were going to talk to each other :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 1:45:32
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 12:43:04
> > > > > Is it possible people whose career is to lock people in jail for possessing marijuana contrary to the law could feel put down upon reading such posts? Also, since the majority of legislators in each of the 50 United States, and the majority of Congressional representatives publicly favor current drug laws, could they or their constituents possibly feel put down to read that their legally adopted policies are "hypocricy at it's worst"?
> > > >
> > > > It's possible. Do you feel put down upon reading them?
> > >
> > > Do I need to show evidence that I was injured
> >
> > No, it would be enough simply to claim that you were.
>
> I do hereby claim that I feel injured when I notice that you selectively enforce policiesHow about when you read those posts?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 7, 2005, at 11:16:46
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 1:45:32
> > > > > > Is it possible people whose career is to lock people in jail for possessing marijuana contrary to the law could feel put down upon reading such posts? Also, since the majority of legislators in each of the 50 United States, and the majority of Congressional representatives publicly favor current drug laws, could they or their constituents possibly feel put down to read that their legally adopted policies are "hypocricy at it's worst"?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's possible. Do you feel put down upon reading them?
> > > >
> > > > Do I need to show evidence that I was injured
> > >
> > > No, it would be enough simply to claim that you were.
> >
> > I do hereby claim that I feel injured when I notice that you selectively enforce policies
>
> How about when you read those posts?
>
> Bob
Dr. Hsiung,
In your reply to the poster, "so",[...how about...], do you mean any of the following?
A."so" could feel injured without reading the posts in question and you need to know if "so" read them before you can reply to her previous requests to you.
B. "So" feels injured because of her/his perception that you selectivly enforce policies here and you want to know if the "selective enforcment" that he/she writes as feeling injured by was felt without reading the posts.
C. You asked the question above because you think that there could be a difference between {noticing} and {reading} a post and you want to have that clarified.
D. You asked "so" the question above for reasons that have nothing to do with choices A, B, and C and you will explain what your reason is.
E. same as "D", but you will not explaine your reason for asking "so".[...how about when you read...?].
F. none of the above
G. a combination of the above
H.all of the above
K. something else
Lou Pilder
Posted by so on June 7, 2005, at 14:51:51
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 1:45:32
> How about when you read those posts?
>
> BobNot because I agree with one side or other, but because as a citizen, my laws are being put down and I feel I am being associated with something called "pathetic", "hypocrisy" and "a joke" if I don't aggressively oppose those particular laws. And since the things I might be seen as "pathetic" for considering involve how much tar and benzopyrenes I inhale and what risks that might pose, I feel the insinuation of hypocricy could not only put me down, it could tend to interfere with my critical thinking about my own health.
This reminds me of the anti-drug commercials, where they say other kids use peer pressure to persuade their friends to use or approve of illegal drugs. I feel I'm being put down if I don't agree with the ones who call drug laws hypocricy.
Posted by crushedout on June 11, 2005, at 0:47:02
In reply to Re: so's request, posted by so on June 7, 2005, at 14:51:51
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:39:38
I previously requested clarification about a thread in which the will of most people in the United States to support current drug laws was called "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke."
You replied by asking me if those statements encouraged me to feel put down. I replied that they do. You still did not respond to either the thread in question or to my request for information about when it is okay in this forum to call certain laws "hypocritical" and "a joke."
Since people are allowed to write statements that might encourage me and the majority of voters in the United States to feel put down, I am now requesting that you clarify what other public policies I may call "hypocritical" and "pathetic" in the context of writing to this forum.
1. May I write in this forum that policy statements of those who oppose the drug war are "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke" in the same way those who oppose the drug war may write here that those policies of duly elected officials are here "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke"?
2. May I write in this forum it is "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke" to engage in the war in Iraq?
3. May I write in this forum that laws permitting certain pharmaceuticals to be prescribed are "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke"?
4. May I write in this forum that laws permitting certain pharmaceuticals not to be prescribed are "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke", or is that privilage reserved people you consider to be "Very Important Posters"?
5. May I write in this forum that a particular elected official is "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke"? ?
6. May I write in this forum that the policies of a particular elected official or political party are "hypocritical", "pathetic" and "a joke"?
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:28:00
In reply to so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:39:38
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 17:58:04
In reply to Seems you already have (nm) » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:28:00
gardenergirl,
Your subject line reads,[...you already have...].
As I read the post that you are responding to, is it not about the poster's request to Dr-Hsiung to clarify several points in relation to a previous request to Dr. Hsiung where he did not reply with an answer to the poster's concerns, but asked the poster a question instead? And has not the poster replied to Dr. Hsiung as to his question to her/him and now the original question is brought back?
Could you clarify what your statement,[...you already have...], in response to the post by "so", means? You already have {what}?
Lou
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:08:38
In reply to Seems you already have (nm) » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:28:00
You titled a post, that contained no message, "seems you already have."
It doesn't seem that way to me.
Are you saying it seems the questions I am requesting clarification about are in fact statements of my beliefs? If that is your impression, it is not consistent with my intent because I composed the statements solely based on thier logical affiliation with other statements that were allowed here and not on my personal beliefs. If I learn more about the propriety of those questions which I arbitrarily composed to reflect syntax that was allowed in other threads, I might better know how, at this forum, I am allowed to disclose my actual and as-yet-undisclosed beliefs about the drug war or about other political matters.
I might not personally believe the drug war represents the best policy, but my questions are intended only to discover how I may phrase opinions. I might or might not hold that it is hypocritical to believe for or against any policy, but I am confused that some posters are allowed to write here that something is "hypocritical", "pathetic" or "a joke" while others at other times are not. I am attempting to learn if that permission is based on the context of their statement, on an administrative presumption of the accuracy of their statement, or on permissions granted to some group members but not to others.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:55
In reply to so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 15:39:38
I wonder if I am allowed to ask whether your post is "hypocrytical" "pathetic" and a "joke"?
sigh.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:55
By the way...
My post was a joke.
Trying to be funny - sorry.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:50:55
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
Here we go again. How about a Board for a few chosen people? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:51:56
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:26:02
And no I won't clarify what I meant. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 18:59:57
In reply to this is a fun thread (nm), posted by crushedout on June 11, 2005, at 0:47:02
Okay, I had to laugh at that..
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 19:20:09
In reply to Re: so's request for Robert Hsiung -- hypcrt.pthtc, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:50:55
> Here we go again. How about a Board for a few chosen people? Fondly, Phillipa
The matter of separate boards for a few chosen people, as proposed by the administrator, is being discussed in a separate thread on this admin board.
In recognition of your subsequent statement that you will not further disclose what you meant by "here we go again" I will decline at this time to disclose how I felt when I read the statement, even though a person's feelings might generally warrant certain protections under the published guidelines of this forum and my disclosure might tend to inform application of those guidelines.
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.