![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 97 to 121 of 180. Go back in thread:
Posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
In reply to *corrections* Lou's reply-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 12:18:50
When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 15:34:18
In reply to Re: *corrections* » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
> When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
>
> I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,[...posts standing that were.. brought to the admin's attention..that is different...].
The fact here is that Mr. Hsiung has posted that it is right that one can assume that if something is brought to his attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. (citation facts13).
To be brought to his attention could be done in many ways.
A.by emailing him
B.by posting the statement in question as a request for a determination
C.by others posting the statement as an identification and seeking from him a reason as to why nothing has been done.
D. by using the notification system
E. by using the babblemail system
F. By seeing that he has responded to the post in the thread and that his response could mean that he knows of it.
G. other possible ways
So when members see posts that have had nothing done to them, and they are of the nature that they , let's say, could lead a Jew or someone else to feel put down or accused by the post, they could rely on the fact that Mr. Hsiung writes that if nothing is done then he thinks it is not against the rules to post such. What also needs then to be determined is if it has been brought to Mr. Hsiung's attention. That could or could not be determined if the member wants to use the usual ways to find out. But could not some posts have obvious statements of the nature in question so that if there has not been something to bring it to his attention that can be seen, that their could have been and that no search for such could be made?
As to how many of those type are here, members have emailed me and asked me for them and if anyoe would like them, they could email me for posts of that nature.
Then in the types where I post a reminder that a notification is outstanding, members can email me to find out which post it is. They could then forward it to others.
As to one assuming that any post that has had nothing done is not against the rules, I do not know what could annul the fact that Mr. Hsiung has written here that those type that have been brought to his attention and have had nothing done are not against the rules if the person that sees the post in question knows that it has been brought to his attention. Also, one could use the TOS and the past practice that states what is uncivil to make their own determiniation and it may be plainly visible.
Then there is the fact that Mr. Hsiung states that he does what will be good for the community as a whole and to trust what he does. This could mean IMO that a post that has nothing done and has been asked to review in some way, and is plainly visible to have , let's say, statements that could lead a Jew or somwone else to feel put down or accused, could IMO lead a person to think that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it stand with nothing done even if there is something in the post that the one reading it thinks could lead a person to feel accused or put down and think that those statements of that nature are not against the rules. Is that not a fact? There are many examples on the board here now in statements and in links brought up by concerned members here and it is a fact that Mr. Hsiung has written to not post a link to a web site that has antisemitic content, period. (citation rspct 4)
I ask, could you post in your opinions, why posts that have been identified so far here of the nature in question are not addressed and could anull the fact of what Mr. Hsiung writes here? If you could, then I could rspond accordingly
Lou
citation (fact13)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
citation(rspct4). I would like those interested in this one to email me for that post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2008, at 16:03:53
In reply to Re: *corrections* » Lou Pilder, posted by Geegee on October 3, 2008, at 13:58:47
> When you add the context of posts "standing" that were previously brought to admin's attention for review of civility, that is different. If a post was reviewed by admin and assessed as not uncivil, then the post (usually) "stands" as is, unremarked upon. However, that does not mean that one can assume that any post that is unremarked upon by admin "stands" as being not uncivil. And since readers do not know which posts have and which posts have not been flagged to admin via the notification system, assuming that posts that "stand" unremarked have or would be deemed "civil" by admin is not a reliable method for interpreting whether a post is civil or not.
>
> I'm not saying anything new here. It's all been said before.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,[...it has all been said before...]
I am unsure as to what posts you are meaning to include as to that they say what you posted here. Could you post the links to some of the posts that you are using to write that [...it has all been said before...]?
If you could , then I could have the opportunity to post my response as to that I am unsure what post(s) could anull the fact that posts that have nothing done to them {could} be uncivil if they have statements that could lead, let's say, a Jew or others to feel put down/accused as per those that are posted now by concerned members asking why those were not addressed
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2008, at 16:09:31
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psalmrychumng, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2008, at 8:23:39
> > > > I do not understand myself why such things as were on the Faith board are allowed to stand
> > >
> > > If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote to Zeba,and your subject line was[...why such things are allowed to stand...]. Then you wrote,[...If you think saying something is a problem, could you please not repeat it?..].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean as per the grammatical structure of the subject line and the text to Zeba taken together. If you could post here your rationale for what you posted to her, and clarification for the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > In your statement to not repeat {it}, the grammatical structure leads me to think that the {it} could be what she thinks is a problem statement that she is wondering why it has not been addressed in past posts as in the post by her that you linked to here.
> > Zeba wrote to ask a question which was;
> > [...I do not understand myself why such things as were on the faith board are allowed to stand without consideration for the fact that some people..are Jewish...].
> > If your post here is a reply to Zeba to her question, could you post your rationale for posting your statement if it is an answer to her question, for I am unsure as to how your statement to her answers , if it is intended to be an answer, her question?
> > In [...could you please not repeat it?...]
> > I see Zeba identifying what she thinks is something posted that she does not understand why it has not been addressed. And she writes there,[...Hopefully, Dr. Bob or someone else can explain ...]. Since she was hopefull that you could explain {why}, I am unsure as to if your reply to her is intended or not to explain why. For you wrote,[...could you please not repeat it?...] I am unsure as to what your rationale could be to write that because I do not know how something could be identified with out writing what it is that one wants to be the subject of {such things on the faith board}. If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding of the grammatical structure of your post and respond accordingly.
> > If you are wanting to mean that the statment in question could be an accusation, because I think that you had previously posted something about {repeating the accusation},I do not see as identifying something as repeating what it says as an accusation toward anyone, for in her post I do not see where she is charging anyone with the statement in question, but wondering why it had not been addressed in previous posts. If you could give your rationale for asking her not to post what she is wondering why the statment has not been addressed in the past posts where it apppears, then I could have the opportunity to respod accordingly.
> > In the subject line,[...why such things are allowed to stand..] is any part of your post to Zeba a rationale for allowing the statements in question to stand? If so could you post your rationale and then I could respond accordingly?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder procedure and that you have written that if a member would like to know your ratrionale for something to ask you, and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take and other aspects of the TOS here, the above.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder procedure to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dena on January 18, 2009, at 14:31:51
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 19:24:48
> I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
>
> I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
>
> My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
>
> Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.Dena here: Going back to this ... in a recent notification, I showed that a link to someone's church site had a statement that "only" people who believe as they do can come to God. That would leave out a great many, including Jews. Excluding the Jews is anti-Semitic.
I was told that that particular church is not Anti-Semitic (that they often allow Jews to use their facilities), but that church also rebaptizes deceased Jews (by proxy) ... *against the wishes* of the Jewish families. This implies, strongly, that the Jews are not "good enough" as they are (as Jews), and that they must be "changed" in order to come to God.
No matter *what* the politically-correct stance is of the church, upfront to the public (& honestly, Wikipedia, which can be altered by anyone, as a legitimate source?!?), their practices show what they *really* believe, which is that Jews are not acceptable as Jews, unless and until those Jews are rebaptized into *that particular church*, even against their will.
And THAT is anti-Semitic.
And THAT is not denounced here.
The website that promotes this practice, the website that says "only" those who believe as they do can "be saved", is allowed to remain on this forum, and is backed up by the moderators/deputies who responded to my notification.
This is in absolute defiance to Dr. Bob's stated guidelines. It has been justified by twisting statements, but the fact remains: this forum allows anti-Semitic statements and practices to be supported and promoted, by NOT removing a link to the church that does this very thing.
How is this integrity?
How is this right?
How does this NOT lead to Jews feeling put down?
C'mon, let's get real & honest. Just admit that a mistake has been made, and rectify it.
Simple.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2009, at 3:08:09
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dinah, posted by Dena on January 18, 2009, at 14:31:51
> The [link to the] website that promotes this practice ... is allowed to remain on this forum, and is backed up by the moderators/deputies who responded to my notification.
>
> This is in absolute defiance to Dr. Bob's stated guidelines. It has been justified by twisting statementsIf we see a problem with something someone posts, our policy isn't to delete it, but to ask the poster please to be more careful (it's the first time for them) or to block them from posting for a period of time (if it isn't):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Also, please don't post anything that could lead others (such as deputies) to feel accused (for example, of twisting statements).
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in 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
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 2 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual or group) = 3
block length = 2.88 rounded = 3 weeks
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 19, 2009, at 19:09:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » Dena, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2009, at 3:08:09
Somehow, this seems punitive.
To me, anyways. Excuse me for not using the notification button for expressing my general displeasure. It's not expressed at anyone in particular but in the general flavour of the atmosphere. Somewhat like, Who cut the cheese?
pc
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
In reply to Re: Please Advise » Dena, posted by Dinah on July 17, 2008, at 19:24:48
> I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
>
> I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
>
> My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
>
> Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.Dinah,
I am requesting that you clarify some aspects of your statement here in;
[...If I believed that the administration of this site was anti-Semitic, I would not be part of it...]
The grammatical structure has for me a want for infomation so that I could post my response to you here.
You have defined your use of {the administration of the site} as to like the way that the site is run. This has me to want to know as to if you are wanting to mean any of the folllowing:
The administration would be anti-Semitic in your thinking if;
A. a member of the administration posted something that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused?
B. the members of the administration would be unwilling to sanction a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused as being uncivil?
C. The members of the administration would allow for a significant time lag to elapse in relation to addressing concerns about a statement that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down/accused.
D. The mambers of the administration would allow statements to go unsanctioned that promulgated replacement theology.
E. other things that members of the administration will allow or do that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused that are not stated here.
Then in your statement that you would not be part of {it}, I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean that as to what the {it} could be, so is the meaning of the {it};
F. that you would resign from the membership of the administeration if that was the case in any part of A-E?
or
G. you would not participate in items A-E, but still remain part of the administration membership?
H. something else?
If you could clarify these things here , then I could post my response accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on January 21, 2009, at 8:33:12
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-NYNY » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
I'm sorry that my statement's grammatical structure allowed for confusion, but I think I did the best I could in structuring it. I stand by my statement.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 10:50:29
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-NYNY » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2009, at 7:34:52
> > I'm a deputy here, Dena. Which I suppose is part of administration.
> >
> > I'm not antisemitic. If I believed the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it.
> >
> > My personal theology is based heavily on Judaism, in particular the works of Rabbi Kushner. I have attended seminars and study groups held by our local Jewish communities. They have helped form not only my spirituality but my ethical views.
> >
> > Is it your experience that posts by Jewish people receive more blocks than posts by Christians on the faith board? That has not been my experience.
>
> Dinah,
> I am requesting that you clarify some aspects of your statement here in;
> [...If I believed that the administration of this site was anti-Semitic, I would not be part of it...]
> The grammatical structure has for me a want for infomation so that I could post my response to you here.
> You have defined your use of {the administration of the site} as to like the way that the site is run. This has me to want to know as to if you are wanting to mean any of the folllowing:
> The administration would be anti-Semitic in your thinking if;
> A. a member of the administration posted something that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused?
> B. the members of the administration would be unwilling to sanction a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused as being uncivil?
> C. The members of the administration would allow for a significant time lag to elapse in relation to addressing concerns about a statement that has the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down/accused.
> D. The mambers of the administration would allow statements to go unsanctioned that promulgated replacement theology.
> E. other things that members of the administration will allow or do that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused that are not stated here.
> Then in your statement that you would not be part of {it}, I am unsure as to if you are wanting to mean that as to what the {it} could be, so is the meaning of the {it};
> F. that you would resign from the membership of the administeration if that was the case in any part of A-E?
> or
> G. you would not participate in items A-E, but still remain part of the administration membership?
> H. something else?
> If you could clarify these things here , then I could post my response accordingly.
> LouFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am asking that you consider the folllowing in any post that you may add here.
The statement in question now is by Dinah,
[...If I believed that the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it...].
A. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean as to what constitutes if the adminstration of a site is or is not anti-Semitic
B. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean by that if the administration was anti-Semitic that she would {not be part of *it*}.
If I was to know those, then I could respond accordingly. At this time, if you could post your opinions, if anyone has them, here after reading this post, then I think that I could have a better understanding of what Dinah is wanting to mean by using your opinions and then respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 12:11:24
In reply to Lou's request to members-, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 10:50:29
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am asking that you consider the folllowing in any post that you may add here.
> The statement in question now is by Dinah,
> [...If I believed that the administration of this site was antisemitic, I would not be part of it...].
> A. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean as to what constitutes if the adminstration of a site is or is not anti-Semitic
> B. I am unsure as to what Dinah is wanting to mean by that if the administration was anti-Semitic that she would {not be part of *it*}.
> If I was to know those, then I could respond accordingly. At this time, if you could post your opinions, if anyone has them, here after reading this post, then I think that I could have a better understanding of what Dinah is wanting to mean by using your opinions and then respond accordingly.
> LouPlease do not pressure others. You asked me to clarify and I declined to do so.
Also, please do not ask others to post their opinions as to what any given poster meant by what they said. This would be encouraging other posters to jump to conclusions, which would be against site guidelines.
Followups regarding these issues should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 14:52:01
In reply to Please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 12:11:24
It must be nice to be a deputy, to sanction posts made against one's self.
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 25, 2009, at 15:44:35
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 14:52:01
I was thinking that very same thing. Unless a fellow babbler reported Lou's post? But I didn't think it was the least bit uncivil.
Poor Lou.
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 15:56:19
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Partlycloudy on January 25, 2009, at 15:44:35
Now we're back to this jumping to conclusions thing.
It could be explained to me every day for a year before breakfast and I'd never get it.
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 16:05:40
In reply to Lou's request to members-, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 10:50:29
Her's my 2 bobs worth.
The Administration of Babble is not antisemitic.
Dinah, both in her personal opinions and the way she interprets the civility rules is particularly not antisemitic, which should be (I would have thought) obvious to anyone familiar with her posts and rulings.
Nevertheless, we can always expect antisemitism to seep in, since Christianity has a history of antisemitism both in its theology and its practice, even though (of course) most Christians are not.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:07:32
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 14:52:01
My main point was this:
Please do not ask others to post their opinions as to what any given poster meant by what they said. This would be encouraging other posters to jump to conclusions, which would be against site guidelines.
My reading of the civility guidelines is that posters should not ask other posters to guess at the meaning of what yet another poster meant by what they posted, since this would involve jumping to conclusions. At least in my experience.
It doesn't matter what posters are involved. This is the point I'd like to make.
Since there seems to be a substantial opinion that this should be ok under site guidelines, I'll send my post on to Dr. Bob with a request to review it for correctness. Should he say that it is fine for posters to ask the board at large to opine on the posts of other posters, then that will be the applicable precedent and it will apply to all posters.
It is his board, and he has oversight over all deputy decisions.
Until he rules differently, please do not the board at large to post opinions on what a poster means by their post.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:09:02
In reply to Explanation » SlugSlimersSoSlided, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:07:32
That was not meant for any poster in particular. Merely an assurance that I would ask Dr. Bob to review this.
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:09:39
In reply to Re: Lou's request to members-, posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 16:05:40
I appreciate this.
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:23:29
In reply to Explanation » SlugSlimersSoSlided, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:07:32
> Since there seems to be a substantial opinion that this should be ok under site guidelines,
I do believe I made my own leap to conclusions there. I'm sorry for that. It's all too easy to do.
However, it hasn't come up before, so I'll ask Dr. Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 16:43:03
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Partlycloudy on January 25, 2009, at 15:44:35
> I was thinking that very same thing. Unless a fellow babbler reported Lou's post? But I didn't think it was the least bit uncivil.
>
> Poor Lou.partlycloudy,
You wrote,[...I didn't think...],
Could you post here what your perspective is in relation to any psychological/emotional mental health issues, if you see any of those here, in this situation? If you could, then I think that there could be a benifit to the members from a discussion that could follow.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 16:54:41
In reply to Re: Lou's request to members-, posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 16:05:40
> Her's my 2 bobs worth.
>
> The Administration of Babble is not antisemitic.
>
> Dinah, both in her personal opinions and the way she interprets the civility rules is particularly not antisemitic, which should be (I would have thought) obvious to anyone familiar with her posts and rulings.
>
> Nevertheless, we can always expect antisemitism to seep in, since Christianity has a history of antisemitism both in its theology and its practice, even though (of course) most Christians are not.Sigismund,
You wrote,[..my 2 bobs worth...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting mean in relation to that. I am wondering if then you could differentiate what you posted that followed as to if you are wanting to mean that your statements are either an opinion or a fact or something else. If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Partlycloudy on January 25, 2009, at 17:14:05
In reply to Lou's request for a perspective-difprspc » Partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 16:43:03
> > I was thinking that very same thing. Unless a fellow babbler reported Lou's post? But I didn't think it was the least bit uncivil.
> >
> > Poor Lou.
>
> partlycloudy,
> You wrote,[...I didn't think...],
> Could you post here what your perspective is in relation to any psychological/emotional mental health issues, if you see any of those here, in this situation? If you could, then I think that there could be a benifit to the members from a discussion that could follow.
> Lou
>
>I'll give it a try. I didn't consider your post to be uncivil, and my current understanding of the guidelines are that posts aren't acted upon unless they have been notified as such to the administration.
Unless - the administration themselves think a comment has been directed at one of them and so they can immediately respond with a PBC to render this action, bypassing the notification system.
In any case, I was expressing that I didn't necessarily agree with the ruling - and so my saying, "Poor Lou". We all here struggle with our own issues - sometimes I feel that the way we attempt to express ourselves just can't please 'em all.
It's why I've been exceptionally quiet - for me. My notifications have not been met with happy results in two cases. Getting PBC's off the boards actually hurts more than a public slapping of the hand. I guess if one of them results in a block, no one will even know that I'm gone. Where's the transparency gone around here? It makes me feel more than a bit paranoid.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 18:21:48
In reply to Lou's request for a differentiation-mietubobs » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 16:54:41
Lou
This is what I believe to be true.
I do understand how hurtful it could be for a Jew to hear some Christian teachings....the sort I was brought up on.
FWIW (not much) I believe them to be part of the early history of the church, and a distortion.
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 18:30:44
In reply to Explanation » SlugSlimersSoSlided, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 16:07:32
What I meant to post was that I can't post back to someone in a conversation who I feel is being uncivil towards me, "to be civil", or I would get blocked, but you are lucky because you can because you are a deputy.
Just seems to me if you are personally involved in a thread, a please be civil should come from somebody other than yourself, that is, IF somebody else used the notify button. Maybe that isn't a rule, but it seems like it would be in an other life circumstances, to be an abuse of power or unfairness due to a power differential between the both of you. JMO
Posted by SlugSlimersSoSlided on January 25, 2009, at 18:51:12
In reply to Lou's request for a perspective-difprspc » Partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 16:43:03
Hi Lou,
I haven't been following many threads so much anymore on Babble, but I wanted to tell you something.
I grew up in a community that was very religious of a certain type of religion. I of course didn't belong to any church, because I wasn't brought up with religion, and I was shunned a lot by others even as a child. I wasn't allowed to date others because I didn't belong to their church, some of my friends couldn't even spend the night at my house, and as a young girl, that was huge to have slumber parties. I know what it is like to be in the minority, and I know that sometimes people just don't understand how it feels. They don't even understand that they are being prejudice either.
I personally believe there are fine people of all faiths, but there are also some rotten eggs in all faiths too.
Keep fighting for what you believe in Lou, I admire your stamina, but I will be leaving Babble soon for good, so take care.
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.