![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 16:18:47
In reply to Please Be Civil » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
Kiddo,
The allegations that yo have made against Ron Hill are ,to me, outrageous IMHO. If your allegations are held to be against the rules of this board, then no poster could disagree with anyone or they could be repremanded IMHO. Now John has evry right to see, in his experiances in his life, that segregation is, indeed segregation by any mode or means IMHO. Whenever you separate peoples, by any criteria, you end up with the possibility of demaening one or both of the groups IMHO. For you must examine the purpose that the segregation is being advocated IMHO. If it is to separate people on the basis that they have a religious beliefe in God, then, IMHO, it is abhorrant to all. The separation of race, religion, gender, handicap, ethnicicity, intellegance, height, weight, hair type, and 1000 other distinctions, all are in the same Kingdom IMHO. The genus/spieceis may be different, but segregation is segregation no matter what is the charactoristic to be srgreagated IMHO. That is why I tried to not be relegated to another board. I wanted us all to be one people. I would want the book club on the one board also. John's perception of the back of the bus is a valid assesment by him as he sees it IMHO and he and others here have diverse opinions and they should all be welcome,IMHO.
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 16:26:26
In reply to I imagine I'll be blocked soon... » NikkiT2, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 16:11:04
A. Respond to every post that even remotely defends your position with praises and back patting.B. Either ignore entirely any Civil post which questions your position, or answer said post with the same type of content that is being questioned.
...why?
Posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 16:47:54
In reply to Please Be Civil » Ron Hill, posted by kiddo on May 23, 2002, at 14:59:57
Kiddo,
My comment was directed to Dr. Bob. The idea of relegating constituently guaranteed speech to an isolated corner of the web site is almost certainly illegal. In this regard, it would be similar to some of the events associated with the civil rights movement (e.g. separate but equal). I was merely drawing an analogy.
I meant absolutely no insult to you in any way.
> I don’t discriminate regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, social status, or in any other way.
Kiddo, where did I say that you do?
> Comparing my suggestion to what happened to African-Americans really bothers me and hurts to think someone could even think I’d be so cruel. I’m part Cherokee, so I hope you understand what I mean.
I don't think you are cruel, Kiddo. Heck, I don't even know you! From your posts that I've read on the various boards, you seem like a nice person. My comments were directed to Dr. Bob. I did so because he seemed to leave the door open to the idea of restricting speech at the conclusion of his brief reply: "Hmm, it sounds like a can of worms, but OTOH..."
I was merely conveying my opinion to Dr. Bob that "separate but equal" is probably not a good idea. IMHO, discrimination is a bad thing in any of its various faces, including discrimination against people of faith.
> In my opinion, you were jumping to conclusions for the fact you didn’t bother to even ask what I meant, or even phrase it as a question, you just came to the conclusion I was trying to ‘get rid’ of Lou, when in fact that isn’t the case at all.
>
> Why not have a religious/spiritual board? There is more than one person on this site who refers to their faith regardless of being public or private about their faith. Why not add a place for those people to get together and have that ability while allowing those who don't want to participate the option of not utilizing it?As I've stated above, to restrict religious speech in the manner suggested is likely illegal. The legal term for such activity is "viewpoint discrimination".
> I'm offended that you make a racial discrimination/segregation reference to something that I authored for the fact you have no idea what race, religion, age and perhaps gender that I am-so please don't assume things about me that you don’t know.
I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> This comment felt accusing to me and I’d appreciate it if in the future you wouldn’t make these kinds of statements. I’m not discriminatory towards anyone. If you’d like to know something about me, please ask.
I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> I feel as if this is an over-generalization in the largest sense of the word. It’s like you have lumped me in with the KKK or whomever to make a point from a statement that wasn’t even there in the first place.I made NO assumptions about you. I didn't even think of you while I was writing the post. My post was directed to Dr. Bob.
> There are several boards on this website, categorized for CONTENT, not trying to shove them out the door. I thought it would be rather nice to have one like this. Other people have made references to reading their Bible and helped them through depression and were given the 3rd degree for it. Why not have a place where they may speak of it freely without repercussion?
Yes, I hear ya Kiddo. That's all fine well and good so long as religious speech is not restricted to only that particular web page on this site. Such restriction is viewpoint discrimination. The law requires that religious speech be given equal status as other forms of speech in the market place of ideas. As an aside, it would seem to me that giving someone the 3rd degree is uncivil, and that it should be dealt with as such.
> Please let me know if I've taken this statement wrong and there is something constructive that I have missed.
Kiddo, I’m sorry for your hurt feelings. That was certainly NOT my intent.
-- Ron
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 17:24:16
In reply to Re: Clarification » kiddo, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 16:47:54
Okay, I'll try to put this in the most civil terms I can. First any inclination that any of the aforementioned events, conversations, posts, whathaveyou have anything in the slightest bit in common with the racism/discrimination/segregation which occured during the civil rights movement is not only an irresponsible poorly thought out analogy, it also attempts to derive some type of sympathy by direct association with said events of the past. I dont think -anyone- is buying this logic.Second, to claim that all forms of segregation are the same is like trying to argue for coed bathrooms at a college campus. The argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, in my opinion, humble or not. Equating segregation of the boards with some form of human rights violation is not going very far to proving that much logic is being considered in the endevor to foster an environment where -everyone- is happy.
Why not just walk into the bookstore and ask them why in the world all the books aren't just in some great pile in the middle of the store for all to rummage through until they find what they want. Oh but books aren't people you say, but just like the words in the books the words that people post about in their messages are like books, and as such they do deserve some categorisation so that people looking for information can find it easily. Get the bookstore analogy, I surely hope so...
I'm going to go listen to The Cure's first album really really loud right now and try to figure out where this whole thing went pear shaped, and all logic flew out the window...
Posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 17:55:13
In reply to Attn Passengers: We have landed on the planet Zoot, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 17:24:16
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? (nm) » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 17:55:13
I do not think that my text is in any way derogatory, the 1% of my word choice that may be deemed derogatory by someone who doesn't at all agree with my opinion is merely in reference to the fact that I am completely frustrated with a situation that seems to have no logical retort from the oposition whatsoever...Nobody has bothered to make any lucid statements as to why religious text should not be given their own forum, nor have they ever adressed a good portion of any texts that favour said action or are in any way in opposition to that particular person's post...
Nobody seems to be discussing anything, just reiterating their opinions in the hopes that eventually those in opposition will just shut up and go away...
Lets remember here folks, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, this is Dr Bob's site, and what he says goes, and I hope for the love of Jesus, Allah and Buddha that some sensible solution can come of all of this...
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 18:39:36
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
>...and I hope for the love of Jesus, Allah and Buddha that some sensible solution can come of all of this...
Basha's the god of the Church of What's Happening Now.
beardy : )>
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 19:07:29
In reply to Uh, you forgot Basha. » kid_A, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 18:39:36
that show where Rerun got busted for bootlegging Doobie Brothers Tapes!?I'm konfused....!
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2002, at 19:17:15
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
Friends,
When I was a teacher, the school had a 1000 reasons to descriminate against the children .(1000 is used as a figure of speech to mean a large number). They took a girl with a deformed leg and segregated her and made her eat in the library instead of with the others in the caft. I fought to have her be allowed to eat with her friends. I won that one. They also segregated the students by what they called "ability". I fought for 24 years to win that one. They also put the handicapped students in a segregated wing. I fought that one and won that one too. They segregated the girls from boys in Phys. Ed. Someone else won that one. Theses were some of the examples of "De Jure" segregation. There are many examples of what is called ,"De Facto" segregation which are too numerous to list here. But my overiding point is that all of the segregation caused a very unhealthy environment for if you segregate, you arrouse a spector of wonder as to whether one group is better than the other group. I have seen the tragedy of all kinds of segregation in schools. I do not have to tell you about my experiance with segregation outside of the schools.
Today, segregation is a thing of the past. I believe that we should be the exempler and not try to resurrect segregation on this board in regards to religious thought or content. We should be the light to others.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 19:34:27
In reply to Attn Passengers: We have landed on the planet Zoot, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 17:24:16
"I'm going to go listen to The Cure's first album really really loud right now and try to figure out where this whole thing went pear shaped, and all logic flew out the window..."
Ah, we come from similar shells...
Posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 19:38:17
In reply to Uh, you forgot Basha. » kid_A, posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 18:39:36
Is there a "Basha"? I, very seriously, love any and all info on religious/spiritual concepts, so if so, share my Bearded friend.
I loved "What's Happening". But, more so, The Jeffersons and, well, I'll admit it - big fan of I Love Lucy. Really.
Posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 20:10:33
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
Friends,
Kid-A hopes that there is a sensible solution to this. the following is my attempt to resolve the controversy.
First, I propose that there should be no blocking, for I believe that the punishment does not fit the crime. Instead, rule breakers be assessed $0.25 (american, I do not know the British or Canadian equivalence)when a rule is broken. No payment is due untill $2.00 is reached. Then payment must be made in order to be reinstated. I do not know what the money could be used for, but we could find one.
Second, posters should be limited to 10 posts a day without accumulating. (use it or loose it)
Third, posts that are deemed defamatory , such as name calling, will cause the poster to loose 5 of their days allotment.
Fourth, posters that make a post that is inspiering will recieve 5 extra posts per day for 3 consecutive days.
Other good and just rules that you can suggest.
Lou
Posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 20:24:33
In reply to Lou's sensible solution » kid_A, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 20:10:33
...I dont recall the necessity for any such additional rulesystem in the past year and a half that I have been posting here, why implement one now?
Posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 20:42:24
In reply to funny... » lou pilder, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 20:24:33
Kid_A,
There is a need now, as I percieve it, to make changes so that the controversy will end. With the changes that I am advocating, the concerns that have been expressed on this board could be addressed.
First, someone expressed that some posters post excessivly. Now the 10 posts per day rule that I am advocating would address that concern.
Second, some posters are in fear of being blocked and that causes inhibition in expressing themselves. My suggestion alleviates that concern.
Third, posters could recieve bonuses in the form of extra posts for posting an inspirational post, like your poetry. these would be accumlative.
Fourth, this system is automatically "fair" for there is no controversy anymore.
Fifth, these changes would cause the board to florish for it would remove the barriers to expression. The old rules are still there, such as do not post anything that has the potential...
do not be acusatory, ..etc. etc.
But I believe that this is needed now for there are more posters now than there were in the time that you cited and that means more of a pluristic group.
There could be more modifications. I think that there are very creative people here and that we can solve our problems internally.
When I was a teacher,
I had a class that was racially polarized and I used this in a successful way to enhance the classroom managment and atmosphere. No one dominated the class and no one called each other names and the class was an example to the other students in the school that had fights in the classrooms and disrespect to students and teachers and the things that you probably saw when you were in the 9th grade.
Lou
Posted by christophrejmc on May 23, 2002, at 21:22:49
In reply to Re: Lou's answer to Kid-A's question. » kid_A, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 20:42:24
> First, someone expressed that some posters post excessivly. Now the 10 posts per day rule that I am advocating would address that concern.
I thought you were against blocking people? Wouldn't this be discrimination against frequent posters?
> Second, some posters are in fear of being blocked and that causes inhibition in expressing themselves. My suggestion alleviates that concern.
Only for people with $2 USD to spare...
> Third, posters could recieve bonuses in the form of extra posts for posting an inspirational post, like your poetry. these would be accumlative.
Who judges what is inspirational and what is not?
> Fourth, this system is automatically "fair" for there is no controversy anymore.
Fair? How can you compare the addition of a "religious" board with segregation and then come up with this? The discrimination is still there, it's just obscured by a set of complex "rules."
Posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
In reply to on formally undecidable propositions » lou pilder, posted by christophrejmc on May 23, 2002, at 21:22:49
Chris,
The judges wou;d be posters like in the Olympics. Kid A cou;d be the poety judge, Cam W. could judge the meds, Beadedlady could judge digestive posts, etc. etc.
Now there could be qulifications for judgship and judges would havwe to be the final determination, like the Olympics.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:08:41
In reply to Here's What I Don't Understand, posted by mair on May 23, 2002, at 15:12:30
Bless you, Mair. That's why you don't see my response on those threads. I ignore them, hoping they'll go away.
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:13:02
In reply to Friday, I'm in Love... » kid_A, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 19:34:27
Posted by IsoM on May 24, 2002, at 0:15:23
In reply to The judges » christophrejmc, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 4:20:12
In reply to I'm losing my mind..., posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 10:16:29
Posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 24, 2002, at 6:04:55
In reply to The judges » christophrejmc, posted by lou pilder on May 23, 2002, at 21:36:12
> The judges wou;d be posters like in the Olympics.
You mean the Special Olympics.
> Kid A cou;d be the poety judge, Cam W. could judge the meds, Beadedlady could judge digestive posts, etc. etc.
See, this is the Lou that Rocks.
needabeerdy : )>
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:03:37
In reply to I imagine I'll be blocked soon... » NikkiT2, posted by krazy kat on May 23, 2002, at 16:11:04
I'm a 2000 person... but I'm not happy about posting there... I hate the idea of the segragation, and decided, rather than whinging about it, I'd just ignore it!!!
Are 2000 people allowed to talk to 2001 people??!! ;)
Nikki x
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
In reply to Re: Clarification » kiddo, posted by Ron Hill on May 23, 2002, at 16:47:54
This is all getting a bit stupid.
No one is asking that Lou himself is segragated, just setting up a new board for discussion of theological issues. two other boards I'm a member of have a seperate page for theological issues, just to keep it ouot of the main stream.
We were segragating people when we asked that social and med issues stay seperate. No..
This is all getting blown out of all proportion. Personally I never read any of Lou's posts as I think its a load of rubbish... surely it would be better for the health of PSB that there be a seperate board for such issues.
Nikki
Posted by Fi on May 24, 2002, at 7:20:32
In reply to Re: Why the derogatory tone of voice? » Ron Hill, posted by kid_A on May 23, 2002, at 18:19:28
Posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 11:38:28
In reply to nah, you'll be here for ever!! » krazy kat, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:03:37
The old timers' boards are mutually exclusive, but I requested to be switched from 2000 (I joined really late in 2000) to 2001 because I know folks better there.
I don't know - weather is better, I'm a little more stabilized, feeling guilty about spending too much time away from family -- I may actually limit my self this time. ;)
- kk
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.