![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 19:57:20
In reply to National differences » Estella, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 15:12:53
> People are patriotic in various ways. Some people aren't patriotic. Anyway I see the American people as patriotic in a way that is quite different to how Australians, for example, are. Australians are not patriotic like that. Winston Churchill remarked of Menzies that 'he leads a country he hates'. There are things you could say about Australia I would find offensive...I can't think of any offhand. And somehow, as an Australian, I find it bad form (British influence!) to have *public* feelings about my country.
it wouldn't just be "bad form" mate.. everyone would think you were .. umm weird? (not quite the word) :-)"I think the Brits themselves are way more patriotic in a way about their own country though, but not about its politicians and policies as such.. but I guess there is a long history there, lots of old castles and stuff to set an atmosphere and remind ya.. if your ancestors did come from there I guess. I guess I felt something like that over there so its not just the Brits:-)
I do think the American people are temperamentally unsuited to being at the centre of whatever they are at the centre of.not sure here Dec.. they are totally responsible for what they have got into.. noone else forced it on em..and I dont think most people would be suited to it?
And the national differences are the big ones here.
that's what I pointed out before.. the politics board and the comments made really hit me.. and magnified the differences between the US.
That's why I called for it to be shut down, if discussion on all sides of view to try to resolve the differences was not allowed.It's almost impossible for anyone not from the Nth American area to participate without feeling stung by what is "supportive" or without "not being sensitive" if they respond.. not matter if they use "i" language or are just expressing their feelings?
My understanding anyway?Also politics isnt exactly a topic to really be debated if you are trying to find a supportive atmosphere if not feeling the best? The words blissful,fun, supportive, enjoyable,peaceful,contented are not usually accosciated with politics?
Posted by Declan on May 29, 2006, at 20:11:32
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 19:57:20
Hey Jan, I wonder about just talking about Australian politics. 'As a community of Australians here on PB we express extreme reservations about the morality of our government and hope that in the future it may find the love of truth' Ahem. The last 6 years have been awful, but this lot only has a little while left.
I think imperialism/spheres of influence/troops-in-a-123-countries is best left to non-democratic states.
Declan
Posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
In reply to Re: National differences, posted by Declan on May 29, 2006, at 20:11:32
> Hey Jan, I wonder about just talking about Australian politics. 'As a community of Australians here on PB we express extreme reservations about the morality of our government and hope that in the future it may find the love of truth' Ahem.
ROFL.. thanks for the laugh
I've known politicians who leave Dec, as they just can't take the corruption etc.. that's the problem.. it's too wearing trying to stand up to it.The last 6 years have been awful, but this lot only has a little while left.
> I think imperialism/spheres of influence/troops-in-a-123-countries is best left to non-democratic states.
> Declanyou know Declan, the problems on the poli board re sensitivies would be overcome a lot if everyone cooled down and realised it's basically a misrepresentation of a person him(her)self to think the just because one is anti "bad policies" or disagrees or even condemns the policies of a govt that you are anti- anyone or any country or even anti the govt of that country.. just some of its policies! If it changed its policies we wouldnt be anti them:-)Its not them , only their policies!
So I think its hurtful(and a snub) that people do feel offended and even say walk out of the room if they were really there.. instead of attempting to see anothers point of view.It's like say someone is attempting to say .. but I find find this may be the wrong way to go about things, it's not working.. look at what is happening! hear this side pls.. and the other person not only snubs them.. but refuses to listen..and reports them. Says they are offended as they disagree with their ideas? Bit like being dobbed in and then thrown in prison for ones' ideas without any trial maybe?
Of course I do expect people to present their thoughts with as little upset and anger as possible, and not to openly attack! But they is a need for discussion on all sides to try to reach an understanding, not necessarily an agreement at least at first.It's just that same thing that causes the terrorism and "flare-ups" as happened in Solomon's recently.. that feeling you are beiing disenfranchised.. not represented.. your values are not being listened to. Democracy in itself unfortunately is taken to be govt by majority.. and this mixing of cultures as has happened in the last 60 or so years especially means that an lot are left voiceless and powerless.. their culture, values, lifestyle, land, beliefs maybe disappearing to be taken over by I guess capitalism/ownersship-control by other countries/cultures.. those with the money to power the voice(even from differing countries).. and suprisingly a lot don't like it.. but have no power to do anything but revolt/ lash out...
It's the concept that democracy is NOT right if its not implemented to allow all to have a voice..
Oh well going now.. its not the politics board:-)
but the same concepts do apply to letting everyone have a voice whether or not they are in the majority on babble politics too!
Posted by Declan on May 30, 2006, at 3:20:39
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
Passed 2: Nil by the Australian Caucus on the Admin thread 'I think I may have broken a rule and I am sorry' 30/5/06.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2006, at 9:11:10
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
"you know Declan, the problems on the poli board re sensitivies would be overcome a lot if everyone cooled down and realised it's basically a misrepresentation of a person him(her)self to think the just because one is anti "bad policies" or disagrees or even or even anti the govt of that country.. just some of its policies! If it changed its policies we wouldnt be anti them:-)Its not them , only their policies! So I think its hurtful(and a snub) that people do feel offended and even say walk out of the room if they were really there.. instead of attempting to see anothers point of view."
Well, I have to say I agree with you there.
Though I have to admit that sometimes my *first* reaction at some of the terminology has been to get defensive, I *do* know that it's really issues being discussed.
I hate it that people get blocked for this - it is really semantics after all.
Sometimes I try to point out what it is about the phrasing that is problematic, but that doesn't help either. If anything it calls attention to the phrasing and makes things worse.
So instead we end up side-tracked and lose sight of the issues being discussed.
What a waste of what could be a truly interesting board.
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
In reply to Re: National differences » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2006, at 9:11:10
I don't think the board, or allowing politics to be discussed, will ever work on this site. But my reasons for thinking so differ from everyone else's I think.
I hope Dr. Bob appreciates my discretion in biting my tongue.
Posted by curtm on May 30, 2006, at 11:33:54
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO
If we didn't have religion or politics, we wouldn't have ANYONE to point the finger at!
Posted by 10derHeart on May 30, 2006, at 15:48:19
In reply to Politics board, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2006, at 9:16:38
>>But my reasons for thinking so differ from everyone else's I think.<<
Perhaps not *everyone* else's :-)
Posted by Declan on May 31, 2006, at 1:39:42
In reply to Re: National differences » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2006, at 9:11:10
But with all due respect to zazenduck, she(?) has to be wrong. I have seen maybe 5(?) flags on lawns in 50 years here. That's the difference.
Is that politics? It doesn't sound like Admin.
Declan
Posted by tealady on May 31, 2006, at 4:53:46
In reply to Re: National differences, posted by Declan on May 31, 2006, at 1:39:42
. I have seen maybe 5(?) flags on lawns in 50 years here. That's the difference.
>Wow Dec.. where!!
I've seen one at parliament house(OK maybe 2 one on the Old one and one on the New one?) in Canberra?
umm..one at primay school and used to play "god save the queen " to it every morning.
I was in the band.. mainly as I hated standing out on a parade ground and trying to stay still especially with bare feet on almost melting bitumen:)OK so where else?.. maybe some other govt houses?
You know I heard the Americans thought it stange that we handed out the words of our national anthem to the Ozzies at the Olympics.. but heck if you want people to sing along they have to know the words right? :-)
I got this really neat piccy of a house I took in England. The whole front is just one big union jack!
I did show it to a friend who lives over there, via the net, but he reckons it musta been for the footy.. but would you get away with that here..even if anyone did ever feel so inclined??
I mean we had the rugby played over here in Sydney in that year (2004).. but no houses painted as flags!
Posted by verne on May 31, 2006, at 9:10:50
In reply to Re: National differences, posted by Declan on May 31, 2006, at 1:39:42
Aussies not nationalistic, not patriotic?
Have you been to any international sporting event in which an Aussie is participating? The chants of "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi" are the loudest. It doesn't even have to be a sporting event. At the World Series of Poker tournament last year, the Aussie Chant could be heard every time an Aussie even won a hand! Remember the Sydney games? The rude behavior of Australian fans is legendary.
I'm ready for a vacation (block) so I'll say the obvious: Australians are some of the most fiercely nationalistic people on earth. I'm so tired of your holier-than-thou American bashing. Yes, you've got my goat, you *sshole. You've eliminated one more at the table. With help from Jay, a like-minded Canadian *sshole.
You always depict Americans in the worst possible light and cast yourselves in the best light. You always assume the worst when it comes to Americans. We always have bad intentions (oil for example) and can do nothing right in your eyes. It's almost as though, Americans are somehow intrinsically wrong. If Australia invades and occupies a few countries, they're intentions are always good and actions justified.
You can't even think or see straight you're so blinded by your own national pride. Look in the mirror you f*ck! Imagine yelling something anti-Australian in a pub in Australia - the fight would be instantaneous. Do the equivalent in the US and you'll be lucky if anyone even glances in your direction.
I'm so sick of your constant stereotyping and simplifying of a country and people. You're so full of sh*t. Give it a rest.
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
Oi! Oi! Oi!
Aussie!
Oi!
Aussie!
Oi!
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
Oi! Oi! Oi!Goodbye Aussieholes.
Verne
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 10:11:34
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by verne on May 31, 2006, at 9:10:50
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 10:14:01
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by verne on May 31, 2006, at 9:10:50
> I'm so tired of your holier-than-thou American bashing. Yes, you've got my goat, you *sshole.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. This has come up before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for 3 weeks.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: I'm trying out a new system:
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
particularly uncivil to other posters: yes
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 2 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 0 weeks. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 1 - 0 = 1 week. And if we triple that, that's 3 weeks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 10:18:33
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by tealady on May 29, 2006, at 22:23:52
> Oh well going now.. its not the politics board:-)
> but the same concepts do apply to letting everyone have a voice whether or not they are in the majority on babble politics too!It's fine to discuss the politics board here, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding national differences to the social board. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 31, 2006, at 10:22:16
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 10:14:01
I think you should accept some responsibility for that situation, as per my email to you re. unaddressed posts.
I just wanted to get that on record.
Posted by Dinah on May 31, 2006, at 10:36:52
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by verne on May 31, 2006, at 9:10:50
Next time, you might want to email it to Dr. Bob. I don't think he blocks for emails to him.
And you can always babblemail me to blow off steam.
You know, I never get really really angry till Dr. Bob comes through the board and lets things pass. If you're the same way, it would probably be as satisfying to email him as to post something you might get blocked for.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 10:55:05
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 31, 2006, at 10:22:16
> I think you should accept some responsibility for that situation, as per my email to you re. unaddressed posts.
>
> I just wanted to get that on record.Hear! Hear!
Time is of the essence.
Lar
Posted by curtm on May 31, 2006, at 10:59:16
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 10:55:05
Posted by ClearSkies on May 31, 2006, at 12:17:47
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 10:14:01
Aw, Verne. What a bummer. And I just tried to send you a babblemail (it doesn't work when you're blocked).
Hope to see you back soon,
ClearSkies
Posted by zazenduck on June 1, 2006, at 7:52:29
In reply to Re: National differences » Declan, posted by verne on May 31, 2006, at 9:10:50
Hi verne I hope you enjoy your vacation. You've talked before about staying away from here and I thought you might like this poem. I do.
How To Be a Poet
(to remind myself)
Make a place to sit down.
Sit down. Be quiet.
You must depend upon
affection, reading, knowledge,
skill — more of each
than you have — inspiration,
work, growing older, patience,
for patience joins time
to eternity. Any readers
who like your work,
doubt their judgment.
Breathe with unconditional breath
the unconditioned air.
Shun electric wire.
Communicate slowly. Live
a three-dimensioned life;
stay away from screens.
Stay away from anything
that obscures the place it is in.
There are no unsacred places;
There are only sacred places
And desecrated places.
~ Wendell Berry ~
Posted by zazenduck on June 1, 2006, at 8:11:52
In reply to Redirect: National differences, posted by Dr. Bob on May 31, 2006, at 10:18:33
I think it is not in the boards best interest to only enforce some of the rules some of the time.
I think the ridiculous lengths of the blocks make even the deputies unwilling to try and enforce the rules. I certainly will waddle away from the screen before I ever try to give a friendly heads up to another poster in order to cooperate with your vision of civility.
While this infraction is understandable, there are also other violations on other boards which have gone unremarked. There is also a wide range in the number of Please Be Civils etc that are given before blocking. This is not fair. It undermines the whole system.
Why do you not make an effort to make the rules clear enough and the penalties reasonable enough that the deputies would be willing to enforce them promptly? There are deputies waiting to go on duty now. What happened to that?
And while you're here, could you invite Marsha Linehan to guest?
I do like you Dr Bob and I think you may be doing the best you can but there are people willing to help you know.
*singing* mind the didgerydoo mate mind the didgerydoo
Your friend
zazenduck
Posted by Bobby on June 1, 2006, at 21:43:55
In reply to Verne, posted by Dinah on May 31, 2006, at 10:36:52
hope you are well--though I think you are.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 1:34:40
In reply to Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 31, 2006, at 10:22:16
> I think you should accept some responsibility for that situation, as per my email to you re. unaddressed posts.
Sorry about having gotten so behind. I'll try to address those posts, too.
Bob
Posted by zazenduck on June 14, 2006, at 11:43:34
In reply to 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:26:40
I'm against it. Thanks for asking :)
> > did he ever get blocked for flouting it?
> >
> > would he have?
>
> To the best of my memory, Lou was never blocked for breaking the 3 post rule, and I think he worked very hard to follow it. His most recent block was for a different "rule of 3", which was about asking admin to review more than 3 posts by a specific poster after having been asked by Dr. Bob to find an alternate way to express his concern.I believe he took great care not to break that one too but he was banned anyway. I do not think any rules are necessary for bob to ban whoever he wants to. So I'm against all rules except please be civil. Viva la common sense!
>
> But about the 3 post rule. I think it's making more than 3 in a row on a thread that are not directly replying to different prior posts. I also think, but I'd have to search the archives, and I'm not willing to do that, that it's also starting more than three threads on one board in a row.
>
> What do folks think aobut this rule? Is it still a good rule (or I suppose you could ask was it ever a good rule)? Is it effective in allowing everyone into the dialog who wishes to be? Should we do something different? If so, what?
>
> gg
>
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 14, 2006, at 17:41:26
In reply to 3 post rule---What do you think about it?, posted by gardenergirl on May 12, 2006, at 13:26:40
>
> > did he ever get blocked for flouting it?
> >
> > would he have?
>
> To the best of my memory, Lou was never blocked for breaking the 3 post rule, and I think he worked very hard to follow it. His most recent block was for a different "rule of 3", which was about asking admin to review more than 3 posts by a specific poster after having been asked by Dr. Bob to find an alternate way to express his concern.
>
> But about the 3 post rule. I think it's making more than 3 in a row on a thread that are not directly replying to different prior posts. I also think, but I'd have to search the archives, and I'm not willing to do that, that it's also starting more than three threads on one board in a row.That's how I recall it.
> What do folks think aobut this rule? Is it still a good rule (or I suppose you could ask was it ever a good rule)?
It was never a good rule. It was a desperate rule. It was a custom rule. It was a Lou rule.
> Is it effective in allowing everyone into the dialog who wishes to be? Should we do something different? If so, what?
>
> ggIf it forced Lou to hear other's feelings about all the questions he asked, it was a good rule. I got very uncomfortable with the questions. Their number, and frequency. It was stifling conversations because older stuff never got finished.
But is that fair to Lou, to make *him* change? I say it's not, yet I was glad to see some changes being made.
I wish Lou could speak here, now, about this. We're all talking about him, and I don't think that's fair. Again, a board for this purpose, to allow blocked posters to speak, would be very helpful to healing wounded feelings. All around.
Reactionary law is bad law. Almost always, it is bad law, unless it's drafted by extraordinary people, who can see past the people and the feelings that are provoking the drafting in the first place.
It was unfair to make Lou change for us. To *make* him change, rather than to persuade him that there was an effect of his interaction style that was also worthy of expression, and thereby allow him to adapt and compromise with all of us. He did all the compromising, this way.
I'm sorry, Lou.
Lar
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.