![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
In reply to I think.., posted by Nikkit2 on July 29, 2005, at 3:20:49
hey Nikkit2- i read ur post and was a bit lost on ur statement RE: calling som1 a bad name?? as i said earlier, i'm not 100% sure what exactly went on and in what order so wld u please let me know what i missed. i read over things quickly and prob. missed some things or they may have been removed B4 i saw them? i'm somewhat new so i don't know exactly how things work-thanx :-D
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 10:58:45
In reply to Re: I think.. » Nikkit2, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
>
I agree with what you had to Say Nikki in principal, but in this case she didn't call anyone an abusive name, those words weren't directed at anyone.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 11:00:01
In reply to Re: I think.. » Nikkit2, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
This is the post that led to the please rephrase
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/533058.html
> E. If a person does not believe in Jesus, could they be a "believer"?
The word itself is not reserved specifically for reference to Jesus. Conceivably you could believe in anything. In the context of this thread, the answer would be no.
> F. Could a person not believe in Jesus and be saved?
No.
> G. Can a person not believe in Jesus and be {saved by Jesus}
No.
> H. Can a person be saved and be a nonbeliever?
No.
==========================================
I think asking for a rephrase *was* in order
Here's the request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/533614.html
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 11:03:15
In reply to Re: Whoa - Dr. Bob said rephrase this, posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 11:00:01
After she rephrased and added how she felt about Lou. The please rephrase and content really didn't have anyhing to do with her block, at least not that Bob specified.
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
In reply to she was blocked. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 11:03:15
anyway, i think we're more talking about the pbc, or maybe there are two threads to this thread.the pbc, separate from the block, was clearly unwarranted.
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 14:35:52
In reply to Re: Reality Check! » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 0:54:36
> hi gabbii,
> I agree with you...it IS kind of like The Trial. (Or The Castle, in the distanced-from-reality kind of way.) Or like most of Kafka!
>Yeah, the man had a way of leaving you gasping for air didn't he?
Maybe I'll write my own thoughts.
"Asterisks of Outrage--life with Dr. Bob and the errant P.B.C"
(That would be a joke in case y'áll weren't sure)
> Since Theresa's statement wasn't directed at any particular individual, but just a rant to the general public, I don't think it warranted a PBC. Even though it was strongly worded, I don't feel it's offensive to any religions or other groups.
>Well, I can only imagine, if I'd just witnessed something so horrifying and sickening, something someone had sent me IN AN E-MAIL I d on't think any words would be strong enough, and it's especially understandable if you're needing to talk about it, and so posting about it right away. I mean, just reading about those things is horrifying.
I think Dr. Bob did focus on the "I don't care" and took at as her brushing off other peoples beliefs, but that's not what she meant. And depending on how involved I was with Babble at the moment, I think getting a slap when I'm that justifiably upset could be very hurtful.
> Are we to assume that there might be a group out there that is very pro-arm-cutting-off-and-truck-dragging-and-beheading, and they might be offended to hear that their actions offend someone? To me, that is taking civility too far!
>
> JenStar
>
>
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 14:39:01
In reply to Re: Reality Check! » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 14:35:52
> "Asterisks of Outrage--life with Dr. Bob and the errant P.B.C"that's hilarious. :-D
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:45:27
In reply to Re: she was blocked. » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
yes there are two threads and AuntieMel,i still don't see even after reading the thread u provided why it was a problem...As i said earlier, the >>>>> marks throw me off a bit as 2 who said what and who replied-i'm still learning :-) and the reason i asked Nikket2 what bad word was used was b/c the post that i read didn't appear to be against any particular person. i still do not agree w/ the block which occurred AFTER the PBC so it is still not justified...if there had been no PBC then the response from c t to dr. bob would not have resulted in the block and even if i felt the PBC was a valid one-(which i dont), the response from c t to dr. bob did not appear in any way to be against policy...??? i am new though so i could be misunderstanding although i don't see how. i still feel this block was wrong but am open to any input others feel may help me to see it from dr.bobs view.. thanx-carolina
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:46:39
In reply to Re: she was blocked. » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
I think there are two threads.
She was asked to be civil on the thread you are talking about - and that was the end of it.
What she was talking about in the email was horrific to be sure. I think I probably would have reacted the same way.
The block came after the rephrase request I linked to. On a *totally* different thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/534009.html
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:57:21
In reply to Re: she was blocked., posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:45:27
In the bits I posted, the >>>> was from a post by Lou and the "No." was the post by ct.
So to break it down
Lou said: "F. Could a person not believe in Jesus and be saved?"
ct answered "No."
The faith board rules state that posters aren't allowed to put down another person's beliefs. Or to word things as if "my way is right." But anyway, that's why she was asked to rephrase it.
The rules would have allowed "We are taught in our faith that this is the only way to be saved."
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:59:16
In reply to Re: the reasoning » Carolina, posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:57:21
thank you-that makes more sense!take care- carolina
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 15:46:02
In reply to Re: the reasoning, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:59:16
I hate to see anyone blocked. But at least with this one I can make sense of it.
sometimes.....
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 29, 2005, at 16:02:01
In reply to Re: I think.. NikkiT2 » Carolina, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 10:58:45
I think my feelings on the subject that was being discussed would be pretty clear to most after the last 3 weeks I have lived through in London. This isn't about disagreeing with what was said.
Anyway, I was digressing..
From my understanding of the rules, you shouldn't even call a group of people a bad name.. And what ever we feel, the terrorists are a group of people with "feelings". The words were directed at those people.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 29, 2005, at 16:03:03
In reply to Re: I think.. » Nikkit2, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
She called a group of people, albeit terrorists, bad names.. By bad names, I mean the uncivil words she used.
I'm not going to repeat them, as that would get me banned.
Nikki xx
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 16:08:13
In reply to Re: I think.. NikkiT2 » gabbii, posted by NikkiT2 on July 29, 2005, at 16:02:01
She didn't use a bad name to refer to them. She just said she didn't care what they believed (i.e., no matter what they believe) killing is messed up. something like that. i don't even think it's clear whom she was referring to (i couldn't tell if it was referring to terrorists).
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 16:35:12
In reply to Re: I think.. NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 16:08:13
>
> She didn't use a bad name to refer to them. She just said she didn't care what they believed (i.e., no matter what they believe) killing is messed up. something like that. i don't even think it's clear whom she was referring to (i couldn't tell if it was referring to terrorists).That's what I thought too, actually I thought she made that especially clear, by saying no matter who you are, this is wrong.. that she wasn't directing it at any on group, even though the e-mail might have been representing one, I'm not clear on who it was either.
And the words weren't describing anything but her horror.
Anyway, Dr. Bob said the P.B.C was given for other reasons, which I still think show he misunderstood her post, so this is beside the point anyway.
Posted by barosky on July 29, 2005, at 19:57:30
In reply to Re: geez, posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 23:01:36
Dr. Bob don't respond to any of my posts, I am enforcing a DNP or whatever that thing is for you.
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 20:06:52
In reply to I REQUEST A DO NOT POST FOR DR. BOB, posted by barosky on July 29, 2005, at 19:57:30
Posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:07:07
In reply to I REQUEST A DO NOT POST FOR DR. BOB, posted by barosky on July 29, 2005, at 19:57:30
barosky,
please don't take the lack of posts from Dr. Bob personally!Dr. Bob is the main site administrator, and I don't believe it's possible to ask him not to post to you. Did you mean for your DNP to be addressed to a specific poster?
Also, keep in mind that he's here mostly to handle admin issues, and rarely responds to general posts. He never joins in social chats. Sometimes he comments on OUR comments or requests for determinations, but doesn't get into personal discussions. He also never offers any medical or therapeutic advice, because this is a social chat site, regardless of the topics of our chats.
I don't think you should take it personally. It's just his style of running the boards.
Have you been posting here long?
JenStar
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 21:42:27
In reply to Re: I think.. NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 16:08:13
>
> She didn't use a bad name to refer to them. She just said she didn't care what they believed (i.e., no matter what they believe) killing is messed up. something like that. i don't even think it's clear whom she was referring to (i couldn't tell if it was referring to terrorists).How can you use a bad name to describe terrorists anyway, isn't the name itself a little on the negative side? Is there a p.c term for terrorists?
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 21:44:29
In reply to Re: I think.. NikkiT2, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 21:42:27
"terrorist" isn't exactly neutral.
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 21:58:31
In reply to good point gabs., posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 21:44:29
these are me thinking out loud, not directed at you.
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 22:33:35
In reply to good point gabs., posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 21:44:29
>
Yeah, I'm pretty good sometimes heh?
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 22:37:28
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » crushedout, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 22:33:35
yeah.
Posted by Carolina on July 30, 2005, at 4:00:34
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 22:37:28
gabbii and crushedout-i agree w/ u both on is there a p.c. term for terrorists?. anyone?????
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.