![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 58. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:16:29
In reply to Re: Jakeman » gardenergirl, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 18:54:34
The constitution applies to laws made by governments. A policy or rule is not legislation.
Now IF Dr. Bob accepts federal funding for this site, perhaps his policies are required to be in line with the US Constitution. (shrugs) But simply because he is presumbably an American citizen does not make every decision he makes subject to the US constitution.
I am an American citizen. Am I not allowed to enforce a "no-cursing (snort!)in my house" rule because of the 1st amendment to the US constitution? Only if I get my city to pass legislation saying such. And then only if someone challenges that legislation as unconstitutional.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 19:17:25
In reply to Let me see if |I understand this? » Dinah, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:05:18
Well, I prefer that Dr. Bob keep the civility rules on *all* the boards. Civil is civil, and I appreciate him for that.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:06
In reply to Let me see if |I understand this? » Dinah, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:05:18
This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.
I'm not suggesting anyone should leave, but it is what it is. And it's not what it's not.
gg
Posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:55
In reply to Re: Jakeman » gardenergirl, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 18:54:34
> 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?
>
> TJThat not true. Your first amendment rights are protected in a "public forum" such as a park or sidewalk. On private property (or website in this case), free speech activities depend on the consent of the owner. You don't automatically have a right to say what you want, whenever you want. Countless court cases have shown this to be the case.
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:27:29
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 19:17:25
<i>Well, I prefer that Dr. Bob keep the civility rules on *all* the boards. Civil is civil, and I appreciate him for that.</i>
Dont misunderstand me, i'm not against DR Bobs civility rules per se, as I think on the whole they work very well (although at time I think he's a bit strict, but thats just my personal opinion), its just that such strictness regarding civility and discussions on religion or politics tend not to mix tooo well.
I'm very much in favour of not letting people become uncivil toward each other in a discussion, but someone got banned for saying Bush was incompetent......thats not uncivil to anyone (bar GB) and I think he's big enough and ugly enough to come and stand up for himself should he choose to do so ;-)
I think you can see where I am coming from anyway.
I've just come up with an interesting notion.......DR Bob as house representative controlling the bunch of heathens that loosely call themselves politicians. He'd be tearing his hair out within a week ;-))
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:31:22
In reply to 1st amendment » teejay, posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:16:29
Well as a Briton rather than an american, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on this one, but I'd kind of assumed that the constitution was there as a guidline or basis for all other decisions to based broadly upon?
Tricky one though as we dont have a constitution as such.
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:34:55
In reply to Re: Jakeman » teejay, posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:55
<i>Your first amendment rights are protected in a "public forum" such as a park or sidewalk. On private property (or website in this case), free speech activities depend on the consent of the owner. You don't automatically have a right to say what you want, whenever you want. Countless court cases have shown this to be the case. </i>
......and this isnt a public forum?
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:41:31
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:06
<i>This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.</i>
No its not, but i'm sure its the most moderated ;-)))
I know you feel like i'm being pedantic, but I do feel that to express political opinion properly, you cant shackle those who choose to voice their opinions.
For example, if I disagreed with your opinions on george bush's stance on Iran for example, provided I attacked GB's standpoint rather than your stance then I wouldnt be being uncivil to you whilst still allowing me to fully express my point of view. The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! (i'm trying to watch my own wording here! LOL)
TJ
Posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:48:20
In reply to Re: Jakeman, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:34:55
> ......and this isnt a public forum?
No it is not. It is a privately owned website where the owner allows people to participate in an online forum. It is still privately held. If the federal or state government owned and operated this site, then they could not inhibit a person's right to free speech. Think of coming here as if you were coming into Dr. Bob's home. It is his private property where his rules apply (as long as they don't break laws). He can choose who can stay and who must go. And he can decide what he will allow as conversation in his house. He has graciously made this forum available to anyone to read and if you sign up he allows you to post. It is still his forum. It is not public in the sense of a "public forum" or "public place". There is a huge difference.
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 20:01:16
In reply to Re: Jakeman » teejay, posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:48:20
<i>No it is not. It is a privately owned website where the owner allows people to participate in an online forum. It is still privately held. If the federal or state government owned and operated this site, then they could not inhibit a person's right to free speech. Think of coming here as if you were coming into Dr. Bob's home. It is his private property where his rules apply (as long as they don't break laws). He can choose who can stay and who must go. And he can decide what he will allow as conversation in his house. He has graciously made this forum available to anyone to read and if you sign up he allows you to post. It is still his forum. It is not public in the sense of a "public forum" or "public place". There is a huge difference. </i>
LEgally speaking, I think you are on very shakey ground there, but that really isnt the issue. Legally binding or not, to live by a constitution and then arbitrarilly take it or leave it as you so wish isnt really morally the right thing to do.
Anyway, I've spent far too much time on the admin board as it is (I generally find it a very negative place to hang out) so will wish you the very best of health, and a good nites sleep :-)
Regards
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 3:55:43
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this?, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:27:29
> I think he's ... ugly enough
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
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.
> I've just come up with an interesting notion.......DR Bob as house representative controlling the bunch of heathens that loosely call themselves politicians. He'd be tearing his hair out within a week ;-))
Didn't someone say before that I'm already losing my hair? :-)
Bob
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this?, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:41:31
> <i>This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.</i>
>
> No its not, but i'm sure its the most moderated ;-)))
>
> I know you feel like i'm being pedantic, but I do feel that to express political opinion properly, you cant shackle those who choose to voice their opinions.
>
> For example, if I disagreed with your opinions on george bush's stance on Iran for example, provided I attacked GB's standpoint rather than your stance then I wouldnt be being uncivil to you whilst still allowing me to fully express my point of view. The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! (I'm trying to watch my own wording here! LOL)
>
> TJLOL I think you're making some good points as well as doing a good job of watching your wording. I sure hope DrBob reads them.
"The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! "
As far as I can make out, I think they are only shackled if they do not support bbbb's policies?
Can anyone see anything different here?
That is, your allowed to fully express your opinions and views provided you are in support of bbbb's policies or even bbbb himself?It seems to me that the fact that the support may upset or discomfort the others that do not so strongly support bbbb's views is not taken into account. They have to let the supporters only air their views, so they must think that everyone agrees with them?, Any attempt at openly and plainly expressing an opposing view, no matter how friendly it was said, would not be supportive and so, under what seems to be at least the recent interpretation and application of the civility guidelines, it's not civil???
At least that's the point I've been attempting to ask? Is civil= supportive and complimenting only?
Can you not state your opinion ..just openly and plainly if it is not in support of BBBB or BBBB policies?
Personally I don't feel comfortable reading the style of writing that the application of these civil rules is creating.I guess I like friendly and open. You could add any of relaxed, funny, thought provoking on top of the open and friendly :-) Maybe it's me that just doesn't fit in here.
I guess I've always appreciated it, if anyone has an opposing view of anything, if they take the trouble to let me know how they feel.
I appreciate and value their effort and the time put in in doing so, especially if they can help me see their view of things as well. A real open 2 -way conversation is the best:-) I guess I really don't like it if everyone just agrees out of civility? Maybe they don't think I'm worth the effort to share their thoughts/experiences/wisdom with?
Whst if I (or others) may have been comparatively discomforted by a supportive statement of bbbb or bbbb's policies, as those who support bbbb are by the statements that openly voice non support of bbbb or his policies?
Do I then voice my discomfort of their complaint that they are discomforted? or voice my discomfort at their support? I ( & I suspect maybe others)arguably feel "uncomfortable" just as strongly .. although I do not see how anyone including myself can judge how anyone else feels.What if bbbb= Osama bin Laden or Saddam Or Hitler or.. does the same apply?.. supportive statements only?
Well I know I'm not doing a great job here of witting succinctly :-)
BTW I didn't think Jakeman did anything wrong either.Jan (who deosn't fit in here)
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:44:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 3:55:43
> > I think he's ... ugly enough
>
> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
>
Dr Bob.. I think that was meant as a compliment ?
I've seen TJ refer to himself as ugly. LOL
Posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 5:52:46
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
As far as I can make out, I think they are only shackled if they do not support bbbb's policies?
Can anyone see anything different here?
That is, your allowed to fully express your opinions and views provided you are in support of bbbb's policies or even bbbb himself?>>actually I do not think this is true. alexandra k was blocked despite being virtually the only poster who defended larry's block, and the block occurred in the course of the rather wide-ranging discussion of issues related to said block.
I personally think that if Dinah's precis of the purposes of the politics board is correct, then it might as well be assimilated to Social or Writing. Politics is a nasty business, and people's lives hinge on politicians' decisions. It's no use pretending that politics can be made vague and smiley enough to qualify as 'civil' as civility is defined here.
I think it is a brave experiment of Dr. B to have a Politics board here. But as a matter of fact, smiley discussions that pass as civil are in my opinion actively pernicious because they obscure the true nature of politics.
-z
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.