![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 32. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 5:25:21
After 1,000 U.S.residents were arrested in San Francisco, the number of U.S. residents detained in this war at this time exceeds the small number of captured Iraqis five to one.
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:22:33
In reply to More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 5:25:21
> After 1,000 U.S.residents were arrested in San Francisco, the number of U.S. residents detained in this war at this time exceeds the small number of captured Iraqis five to one.
and aren't we lucky to live in a country where we can protest if we want to? a friend of mine was arrested day before yesterday and he felt quite fine with that. he felt that he was doing what he wanted to and i bet the protesters in SF feel the same way!!
Posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 8:46:09
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi » J.Brown, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:22:33
> and aren't we lucky to live in a country where we can protest if we want to?
Yes, we are not.
I believe human minds attempt to construe purely circumstantial events to milk neurochemistry of pleasure from events that would be no more or less pleasurable than some other experience.
Residents of the Peoples Republic consider themselves lucky to live in a country where housing is considered a human right. Residents of Muslim countries often consider themselves lucky to live in a place uncorrupted by material lusts. Considering our freedoms a matter of luck or a better condition than those elsewhere can tend to make residents of other countries feel put down. I would prefer to live in a country that follows the rule of law, that allows equitable distribution of opportunity and which does not base its pride in brute force. For a person with experience attempting to assert actual freedom, such as in the review of government documents, the myth of freedom to protest is clouded by official efforts to restrict public involvement in official decisions.
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:53:50
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 8:46:09
> > and aren't we lucky to live in a country where we can protest if we want to?
>
> Yes, we are not.
>
> I believe human minds attempt to construe purely circumstantial events to milk neurochemistry of pleasure from events that would be no more or less pleasurable than some other experience.
>
> Residents of the Peoples Republic consider themselves lucky to live in a country where housing is considered a human right. Residents of Muslim countries often consider themselves lucky to live in a place uncorrupted by material lusts. Considering our freedoms a matter of luck or a better condition than those elsewhere can tend to make residents of other countries feel put down. I would prefer to live in a country that follows the rule of law, that allows equitable distribution of opportunity and which does not base its pride in brute force. For a person with experience attempting to assert actual freedom, such as in the review of government documents, the myth of freedom to protest is clouded by official efforts to restrict public involvement in official decisions.sounds like you would rather live somewhere else.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 9:36:48
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 8:46:09
J.Brown,
You wrote,[...for a person with experiance attempting to assert actual freedom, such as in the review of government documents, the [{myth} of {freedom to protest}] is clouded by official efforts to restrict public involvment in official decisions...].
Could you clarify or identify the following? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.
A.Are you the person in refference here {[attempting to assert actual freedom], and does that involve [attempting to review government documents?]...}
If so, could you identify any of the circumstances surrounding your statement, so as to clarify this situation? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you have posted here.
B.Could you clarify the statement,[...the myth of freedom to protest is clouded by official efforts to restrict public involvement in official decisions...].
1B. Are you saying that people in the United States of America are in a delusion that they have [freedom to protest] , because freedom to protest is a {myth}to Americans?
2B. Are you saying that the {myth} to have freedom to protest is referring to another country? If so, is that country the {People's Republic?}. And if so, is the [People's Republic] equivalent to The People's Republic of {China}?]. If not,could you clarify what [peoples republic],or another country, are you referring to so that the country in question could be identified? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
3B.Are you saying that {...official efforts to restrict public involvment in official decisions...}means the there is a government that considers that there are {official decisions} that the public is not allowed to protest? If so, could you clarify what government are you referring to? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
4B. Are you saying that a goverment, [...Of the people, for the people and by the people...]is a [myth?]. If so, could you clarify if the USA is that country that you are referring to? If you could, them I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 10:21:52
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 8:46:09
J. Brown,
You wrote,[...considering our freedoms a matter of {luck} or a {better condition} than those elsewhere can tend ro make residents of other countries feel put down...].
Could you clarify or identify the following? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and be beter able to respond accordingly.
A.Are you saying that there are people that consider our freedoms [...a matter of {luck}...]? If so, could you identify who those people are? If you could , then I could respond accordingly.
B. Could you clarify what you are referring to as a [... better condition...]? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
C. Are you saying that [{our} freedom] that you referr to, to be the freedom established by the United States Constitution and its ammendments that protect the minority from a tyrannical majority, which has been referred to as [the bill of rights]? Or are you referring to some other country(s)? If you are referring to the U.S.A, then could you clarify the use of the word, {luck} in your statement as to what you use to conclude that the freedoms established in the U.S.A. were a result of {luck}, and not a result of protest and revolution by people that placed freedom above other things, and as a result died to have those freedoms established, that led to the establishment of the constitution ?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 10:32:30
In reply to Lou's response to J. Brown's posts-2 » J.Brown, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2003, at 10:21:52
J. Brow,
You wrote,[...considering our freedoms a matter of {luck}...].
If you are referring to The United States of America in your statement, then below is a link by former President, William Jefferson Clinton, that I would like to be included in my response to your use of the word , {luck} in your statement,[...considering our freedom a matter of {luck}...].
http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/09-1998/wh-0916.html
Lou
Posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 19:44:34
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:53:50
Advice such as that in "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense" suggests a person expose hidden messages veiled in anothers statement. The arbritrary political/cultural control exercised over this discussion prevents such honesty, to the disadvantage of community mental health.
Conclusions that might be derived from the paragraph you cite might include:
* I prefer change in this country.
* I prefer a different order in this country, but am willing to live without realizing my preference.
* I recognize that residents of other places tend to find unique value in their own situation.
However, nothing in my post even slightly suggests that I would rather live somewhere else. One might more easily assume from the post that I am prepared to die to defend, restore or establish freedom and justice in this country, or that I would sacrifice my life to intervene in illegal actions against other nations.
I just heard a commentator on CNN say Bush might want to be careful where he travels because he might be arrested in some countries for ordering the assasination of a political leader, which some western-aligned nations consider a violation of international law.
Posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 15:15:32
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by J.Brown on March 21, 2003, at 19:44:34
Gee, J.Brown. Clearly you have a great interest in the U.S. involement in world affairs. However, this isn't political-science-babble. Give it a rest.
PAX
Posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 15:32:30
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 15:15:32
> Gee, J.Brown. Clearly you have a great interest in the U.S. involement in world affairs. However, this isn't political-science-babble. Give it a rest.
>
> PAXTHANK YOU!!!!, PAT
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 15:52:30
In reply to Re: More US citizens taken prisoners of war than Iraqi, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 15:15:32
paxvox,
You wrote,[...this isn't...,give it a rest...].
Are you saying that J.Brown ,in your statement,[...give it a rest...], that you are {telling}, vs. {asking}, J.Brown to stop posting about the subject that he/she is writing about?
It is my understanding that this board is open to "social" posts, and are you therfore saying that [political-science]is not part of man's {social} aspect or is there some other reason that you wrote,[...give it a rest...]? If there is another reason, could you state that reason? If you could, I could have a better understanding of your post and be better able to respond to it.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 15:52:30
OK, Lou, I'll play just this once, as last year I got booted because of my "uncivil" responses to you. Therefore, please consider this response as my final tete-a-tete with you on this or any subject. First, I was resonding to J.Brown, not you, therefore it would be the pervue of JB to challenge my assertation that the posts being made were nonsequitur to the stated purpose of these forumns (per Dr. Bob himself), and not yours. Secondly, the stated purpose of these forumns should be supportive and informative transactions regarding applicable subject matter (i.e. psycho-social issues related to medically recognized "mental illnesses") and not just shooting the breeze. However, as the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the U.S. is not totally respected here, but is instead "moderated" by the controller of this board, I guess you and JB will post whatever suits your fancy. I have only to ignore them. Albeit that takes some discipline, I must admit, I will take my leave of this thread and any others in which either you or JB choose to post.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
PAX
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 19:45:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
paxvox,
You wrote,[I was responding to J.Brown......not yours...].
Well, I look at this community to be open to all and that any thread is not private, but is welcoming all to contribute and, possibly, to ask for clarification so that they could possibly contribute to the discussion. It is my understanding that the posts here are to evryone, and not just the innitiator of the thread. Also, it is my understanding that if one wants to have a private discussion, that this could be accomplished via email. I have a ligitiamate interest in this topic of discussion and your post left some aspects of it open to the request for clarification by me so that if the clarification was given, I could thearfore respond accordingly and be a better contributing participant.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 19:47:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 20:05:23
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
paxvox,
You wrote,[...the purpose of...should be supportive and informative...psycho-social issues related to...mental illness].
I agree, but I also feel that J. Brown's thought here is just as relevant to the discussion qualities as those that write about their diets and their digestive problems. I also feel that J. Brown's posts are of a challenging nature and that those that feel that being a dissucant in that topic could be of benifit to [them], then they are getting [support and education] from J.Brown's post and that could be a positive contribution to this forum by J. Brown.
There is a wide variety of individual differences here, and I feel that any aspect of man's socialness, including J. Brown's post, deserves [equal] consideration to be posted here and I appreciate his/her courage to post such, and I believe that his/her posts qualify as being supportive,{potentually} and related to mental-illness because politics and world issues are topics that are part of man's social aspects and could be related to mental-illness issues.
Lou
Posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 20:10:42
In reply to Lou's response to paxvox's post-2B » paxvox, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 19:45:59
"Standing next to me in this lonely crowd,
is a man who swears he's not to blame.
All day long I hear him shout so loud,
crying out that he was framed.
I see my light come shining,
from the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now, I shall be released".B.Dylan 1967
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 20:24:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-2B, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 20:10:42
paxvox,
Could you clarify if there is some relevance to the R. Zimmerman song and our discussion that you have answered my post with? If you could, then I could respond accordingly. After all, "the answere is blowing in the wind."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 20:59:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
paxvox,
You wrote,[...I will take my leave of this thread and {any others} that you or J.Brown choose to post...].
Are you saying, by the above, that:
A. You will not be a discussant in a thread if either myself or J. Brown is one of the discussants?
B. You will not be a discussant in a thread that is [innitiated] by myself or J.Brown?
C. You will not [read] any thread that has my name or J. Brown's name as a poster?
D. You will be a discussant in a thread that has my name or J.Brown's name but you will not answer any posts by me or J.Brown?
E. another answer which is_______
F. a combination of the above whic is____
G. none of the above
If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote above and be better able to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 21:28:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 19:31:29
YES, THIS IS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH. IT'S GETTING A BIT ANAL, GUYS........
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 21:40:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post, posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 21:28:26
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...it is gettting a bit {anal}...].
Could you clarify what the word {anal} means relevant to this discussion? If you could, then I could better understand your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ~Alii~ on March 22, 2003, at 22:20:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to paxvox's post-2B, posted by paxvox on March 22, 2003, at 20:10:42
> "Standing next to me in this lonely crowd,
> is a man who swears he's not to blame.
> All day long I hear him shout so loud,
> crying out that he was framed.
> I see my light come shining,
> from the west unto the east.
> Any day now, any day now, I shall be released".
>
> B.Dylan 1967
Nicely done. Nicely said. Miss ya Pax.~Alii
Posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 22:35:17
In reply to Lou's response to fayeroe's post » fayeroe , posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2003, at 21:40:25
> fayeroe,
> You wrote,[...it is gettting a bit {anal}...].
> Could you clarify what the word {anal} means relevant to this discussion? If you could, then I could better understand your post and respond accordingly.
> Lou
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 6:41:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fayeroe's post » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on March 22, 2003, at 22:35:17
fayeroe
I wrote,[...could you clarify your use of the word,{anal}?...].
You wrote,[...the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...].
Well first, thank you for being a friend.
Are you saying then,that your reply to me ,then,could be a case of ,[...you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?...].
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on March 23, 2003, at 10:16:32
In reply to Lou's response to fayeroe's post-2B » fayeroe , posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 6:41:55
you are a friend. and i'm saying that as far as i'm concerned, the answer to this whole discussion is blowing in the wind. and i'm also saying now, sunday morning, that i won't be involved in this any longer. i hope you have a good day and an even better week.
Posted by lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 10:53:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to fayeroe's post-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on March 23, 2003, at 10:16:32
fayeroe,
You wrote,[....the answer is blowing in the wind...] and, [...I hope you have a good day...and week...].
Thank you for your wishes for me. I hope to [...keep a clean nose, don't tie no bows, and stay away from those that carry 'round a fire hose...]and,[...don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters...].
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.