![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on January 29, 2006, at 20:02:18
"I think the board should be removed. There are too many misunderstandings about what is deemed uncivil. We are losing too many good people."
PRECISELY jakeman! You put it far more succinctly than I.
I think Dr Bob is really expecting far too much of people to discuss politics like a bunch of pansies.......after all, if the politicians can't manage to discuss things without getting heated, then why should us proles be expected to behave differently?
I can understand his harsh implementation of the rules on the majority of the boards as there are sensitive people here who to a degree need a "soft" environment to talk in, but IMO if they venture into the wolves den that is politics then they should be strong enough to deal with things when they get a bit heated, provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Jakeman, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
"provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in."
Isn't that the key? Just carry it one more step and anything you would consider uncivil if you said it *to* a person (name calling, whatever) would also be considered uncivil if you say it *about* someone.
Difficult? Sure, but I think it can make for better discussions if we keep our cool and stick to issues and policies.
Posted by 10derHeart on January 31, 2006, at 15:34:45
In reply to Re: Civil politics, posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 20:01:16
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Jakeman, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 7:58:45
> "I think the board should be removed. There are too many misunderstandings about what is deemed uncivil. We are losing too many good people."
>
> PRECISELY jakeman! You put it far more succinctly than I.
>
> I think Dr Bob is really expecting far too much of people to discuss politics like a bunch of pansies.......after all, if the politicians can't manage to discuss things without getting heated, then why should us proles be expected to behave differently?
>
> I can understand his harsh implementation of the rules on the majority of the boards as there are sensitive people here who to a degree need a "soft" environment to talk in, but IMO if they venture into the wolves den that is politics then they should be strong enough to deal with things when they get a bit heated, provided of course things are kept civil and personal abuse doesnt set in.I agree. I could post quotes by Mark Twain or Martin Luther King but because they may offend somebody I'll stay quiet.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
In reply to Re: Civil politics, posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2006, at 14:00:43
But therein lies the rub auntie......neither posters as i'm aware actually resorted to name calling, they both simply said GB was incompetent.
Now thats an opinion, and as far as I'm aware the US constitution allows them to air that view and given this site is american in origin and run by an american, I see it as hypocritical for the powers that be to set different bounds on this site to those laid down by their own constitution.
My only grump perhaps is that to say someone is incompetent they should really state WHY they feel that way so it becomes a rational argument rather than just a throwaway remark. In other words, a throwaway remark could be consider uncivil but if qualified then would become a fair and rational argument.
As i've said though, given the often heated nature of politics, and the strict enforcement of some very strict rules regarding civility on this site, I think a politics board is seriously ill advised.
IMO anyway.
TJ
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 21:14:36
In reply to Re: Politics is a powerful subject, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2006, at 9:29:29
I think Bush said it best tonight in his "State of the Union" address.
"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part."
Let's follow his example and show it can be done even on our own politics board.
:-)
Posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 21:15:24
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 20:01:16
I agree. I could post quotes by Mark Twain or Martin Luther King but because they may offend somebody I'll stay quiet.
You should be taking sommat for that paranoia ;-)))))
Regards
TJ
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
In reply to Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 21:14:36
> I think Bush said it best tonight in his "State of the Union" address.
>
> "In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part."
>
> Let's follow his example and show it can be done even on our own politics board.
>
> :-)I go along with his statement and agree with it completely. I think his actions though are much different than what he says in his speeches. In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot. I can provide proof but I'll not go there now. In my opinion he is not fit to be president because he has committed crimes and has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:03:36
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
> I go along with his statement and agree with it completely. I think his actions though are much different than what he says in his speeches. In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot. I can provide proof but I'll not go there now. In my opinion he is not fit to be president because he has committed crimes and has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
>
> warm regards ~JakeI did not put that quote here to start any political debate on whether or not Bush lies. I quoted it because it is exactly what this whole thread has been about. If I wanted to make this political...I would have taken it to the political board. I didn't ask for yours or anyones opinion on Bush, nor did I want to hear it. I am a very strong supporter of Bush and didn't want to make anything political because I don't want my feelings for you or anyone else to be skewed based on our differing opinions. If you want to talk politics...please do it on the politics board. Otherwise, on this board I am happy to discuss with you whether or not political conversation can ever be civil (I think it can).
Posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
And just so you understand why I don't want to bring politics into this, it's beacause I am a very conservative Republican who has only lived in very liberal cities. All I hear day in and day out is negative things about what I stand for and believe. I am extremely touchy and sensitive about people being negative towards leaders I support. And now that I live in DC, politics and political bickering is all I hear non-stop. It is the last thing I want to talk about on here. The internet is my portal outside of politically-centered DC.
I have no problem talking about civility as it relates to political discussion, but I stay far away from the politics board for a reason. So, I hope you'll be willing to respect my request...at least on the Admin board.
Posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 22:31:34
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address.. » Jakeman, posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
Sorry thuso, I was just stating my opinion. I guess this discussion should have moved back to tthe politics board.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:46:53
In reply to Re: Civil politics » AuntieMel, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
"My only grump perhaps is that to say someone is incompetent they should really state WHY they feel that way so it becomes a rational argument rather than just a throwaway remark."
But that's my point, too. If I said to you that *you* were incompetent it would be uncivil, right?
But if I were to say that I disagree with something you are doing or saying (like I am doing right now) and tell you *why* I disagree then we are having an intelligent debate.
Using the same rules when talking *about* someone can foster the same type debate with no one getting hurt.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:48:53
In reply to Re: Civil politics » AuntieMel, posted by teejay on January 31, 2006, at 20:03:56
We might even <grin> change our minds about something.....
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 17:36:48
In reply to Re: One more thing.... » teejay, posted by AuntieMel on February 1, 2006, at 8:48:53
> We might even <grin> change our minds about something.....
Yes, I'd like to change your mind about something.Bush talked eloquently about how we are 'addicted ' to Middle Eastern oil and how we need to get our cars running on corn derivatives and such.
Meanwhile, 'the Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
The budget for the laboratory... was cut by more than 15 percent... requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930...The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1." (N.Y. Times, 2/2/06).Auntie Mel, would you like more civil discourse on Bush's grand speech and commitment to the American people? I would be more than happy to oblige you. Perhaps the W.Va. governor shutting down the mines after some inconvenient explosions, a month after Bush's official delagated to mine safety walked out of a meeting, to the shock of the meeting's organizers? Oh, there is much more I could tell you.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:06:39
In reply to Re: One more thing.... » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 17:36:48
for the sake of those who wouldn't want me to say anything that might hurt a tender-hearted person's feelings:
UNBELIEVABLY, President Bush’s head of the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration walked out of a congressional hearing on mine safety this week. Acting MSHA chief David Dye and aides simply got up and left, even though senators had more questions for them. Their [uncivil word deleted] is particularly pointed when West Virginians are still grieving the loss of 14 miners in the last three weeks.
-The Charleston Gazette, Jan. 27, 2006.
Note how respectful I am not to provide a link to the material.
So much better to delete words, or put asterisks through them, even if they passed muster in a 'family newspaper.' Perhaps the natives of Charleston, W.Va., got carried away by an excess of local sentiment for miners blown unnecessarily to bits, and neglected the current guidelines on civil discourse as defined by a mental health professional-run board. I am happy that here we do not let our local concerns outweigh a commendable desire to blow potentially uncivil words to bits.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:27:16
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address.. » Jakeman, posted by thuso on January 31, 2006, at 22:23:48
> And just so you understand why I don't want to bring politics into this, it's beacause I am a very conservative Republican who has only lived in very liberal cities. All I hear day in and day out is negative things about what I stand for and believe. I am extremely touchy and sensitive about people being negative towards leaders I support. And now that I live in DC, politics and political bickering is all I hear non-stop. It is the last thing I want to talk about on here. The internet is my portal outside of politically-centered DC. >>
I understand completely, thuso.
And I will share with you that not only am I convinced that Mr.Bush does not read these boards, I am also convinced (well, almost) that the mysterious scope of NSA snooping without a warrant does not extend to this quadrant of the Internet. So, I agree: this is a place for us all to relax and not worry about what Mr. Bush assures us is strictly limited and constitutional surveillance. He hates snoopers almost as much as I do, as evidenced by his less than cooperative attitudes towards probes into Federal Katrina responses and Abramoff-related investigations, not to mention recent reports that many White House e-mails relevant to the Libby investigation have somehow vanished, leaving a hole in the national archives (be it known that I am not an archivist and that I do not think it wise to hold officials too closely to account). And no offense to any snoopers who may have wandered here by mistake, of course. I was only making an 'I'-statement when I said I disliked you.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:10:05
In reply to a place to unwind » thuso, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 18:27:16
> And I will share with you that not only am I convinced that Mr.Bush does not read these boards, I am also convinced (well, almost) that the mysterious scope of NSA snooping without a warrant does not extend to this quadrant of the Internet...
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding snooping to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/605673.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:14:14
In reply to Re: Quote from Bush's State of the Union address..., posted by Jakeman on January 31, 2006, at 21:50:18
> In my opinion and observations, Bush lies a lot.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for a week again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 7:23:38
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Jakeman, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:14:14
Bob, banning people for such remarks makes it look as though you are deliberately trying to trash your own board.
How can you possibly ban jakeman for expressing an opinion.......he even clearly stated it was his own opinion and observation!
Your own constitution enshrines his right to express it!
What do you intend doing Dr Bob, banning everyone who has the opinion that a politician tells lies, or allow them to think it, but not say it? Thats hardly democratic or politically correct is it?
I stick to my original statement that a political board is simply not compatible with the rules you lay down for the other boards (which I broadly agree with). IMO, either a different set of rules needs to be put in place for the politics board, or it should be removed altogether (my preferred option).
TJ
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 11:05:26
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 7:23:38
The babble history of the Faith board and the Politics board (the two richest sources of blocks) is similar. The topics of religion and politics were causing discord on the other boards, so Dr. Bob created a separate board where those discussions could be redirected.
I think the mistake comes when people mistake the purpose of those boards for something they just aren't. Which is not to say that Dr. Bob wouldn't love to see them thriving communities. But limited in scope.
Faith is meant to discuss faith, but not really religion. Except in an educational nonreligious way. In other words, statements of conviction that one's own religion is the "right" one, and the only way to God or heaven have to be scrupulously avoided. Because they are implied statements that other religions are the "wrong" ones and that you can't get to God or heaven through them.
Politics is meant to discuss ideas and concepts, but not really politics or political personalities. Except in general and nonjudgemental ways. So that you state what you believe and why, but not really how horrible or stupid or whatever those (including public figures, and by implication those that believe the same things as said public figures) who believe other things are.
Which, admittedly, lead to limited purpose boards. But when you remember the original purpose of the boards, it makes better sense. Since the logical alternative, and one chosen by other sites, is to ban the discussion of faith or politics.
And whatever one might say about Dr. Bob, I've always admired his willingness not to ban *any* topic, no matter how R rated, controversial, or in any other way difficult, so long as the site guidelines are followed in the discussion.
Posted by muffled on February 3, 2006, at 13:34:41
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 11:05:26
Posted by ed_uk on February 3, 2006, at 14:06:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Jakeman, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2006, at 22:14:14
Dr. Bob, why did you block Jakeman? Surely he didn't do anything wrong. I am sad that he was blocked. I hope he will feel comfortable returning to p-babble after his block is up.
Ed
Posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 15:07:14
In reply to Jakeman » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk on February 3, 2006, at 14:06:00
Hi,
I know Jakeman was stating his opinion. However, just putting "in my opinion" does not make a statement an "I" statement and acceptable. If someone wrote, "In my opinion, GG is a moron", that would not be civil, regardless of whether or not it's true or believed by someone or someones.
I would probably chuckle at such a post, I hope. But I might feel hurt and/or feel put down. My friends may feel hurt and put down for believing me to be [insert positive word here] and hearing that I am instead [inset previous word here].
And to address something teejay wrote...first amendment rights do not apply here. We read the rules when we sign up, and we agree to abide by them when registering. We can also choose not to accept the guidelines, but then we cannot participate at this particular site.
gg
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 18:54:34
In reply to Re: Jakeman, posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 15:07:14
"And to address something teejay wrote...first amendment rights do not apply here. We read the rules when we sign up, and we agree to abide by them when registering. We can also choose not to accept the guidelines, but then we cannot participate at this particular site."
I'm sorry but that simply is not true. Dr Bob I believe is an american and his site too is based in america and therfore his site is in some way at least bound to the constitution of his country......if not then surely it makes a complete and utter nonesense of the whole constitution if people simply override it or ignore it as they see fit?
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:05:18
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 11:05:26
We can go to the faith board provided we dont dicuss religion, and we can go to the politics board provided we only discuss politics in a manner which kindergarten attendees would understand?
<i>Which, admittedly, lead to limited purpose boards </i>
Well yes, in fact it makes them rather impotent really as people spend more time watching their P's and Q's rather than getting involved in a healthy and stimulating discussion.
Lets face it, politics involves subjects where people can and do lose their liberty, or peoples lives are won and lost......and as such you have to expect (in fact almost demand) that people put their heart and soul into such discussions.
<i>I've always admired his willingness not to ban *any* topic, no matter how R rated, controversial, or in any other way difficult, so long as the site guidelines are followed in the discussion.</i>
That would be true if the discussion wasnt stifled so badly by all the rules.
I fully appreciate and accept that the majority of the rules on these boards are there to protect the vulnerabe BUT there comes a time when protection become mollycoddling. If the politics board was less moderated, then people could simply go there when they felt strong enough to do so......in fact they could use it as a bit of a guage as to how strong mentally that they felt?
TJ
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.