![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 65. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 12:04:27
In reply to And the problem here is what???, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
Absolutely. The only problem I had with the old timers boards was that not everyone could post to them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 17:33:59
In reply to And the problem here is what???, posted by NikkiT2 on May 24, 2002, at 7:06:50
> Personally, I'm offended by constant religious preaching, I grew up with enough of that at home... But I don't supose that my opinion is valid for some reason.
>
> I hope you can see some of my points of view, and that I am simply trying to protect and better a board I find of great use and service to me.
>
> kid_AYour opinion is valid, and I appreciate your efforts and believe I see your points of view. But we might still disagree...
----
> Personally I never read any of Lou's posts as I think its a load of rubbish...
>
> NikkiPlease don't post anything that others could take as accusatory or put them down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 18:58:07
In reply to Re: trying to protect and better the boards, posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 17:33:59
I think, in the end, people feel pretty darn put down and accused, and that this is a normal reaction. when someone campaigns for a single point, over and over again.
It's normal to be turned off. . and it's normal to feel put down when you are stonewalled. People have put a lot of effort and thought into their posts in this pretty great thread, into working with someone whose posting bothers them.
And for whatever reason, these efforts by and large are not reciprocated. I think there's an immense amount to be learned from non-reciprocation; it opens the way to compassion--and it also can indicate, very simply, that the people involved are simply barking up two different trees.
Forget the religion part--it's *normal* to want us all to be barking up pretty much the same tree. That's the purpose of PB. That's why we're log on!
I wonde, too, whether any poster who consistently fails to observe the stated purpose of the boards. .. can they be said to be supportive of others?
Although it is true that posts and threads can be ignored, there is a valid concern here, a valid source of ill-feeling, one that has grown over time. People are questioning the source of that ill-feeling, and I'm wondering if it source might prove to be an administrative issue.
I am certain, as Kid_A suggested, that if I responded to every post extolling Republicanism (perish the thought) (<--joke) (if true) . . I would soon be asked to go find a Republican board. (Is there such a thing?) (<---joke v.2)
This seems only reasonable--and just, and fair, to all concerned. The fact that it is religion that is being offered shouldn't hold any special sway. And I do not respect *any* poster who hides behind that issue, should that be the case. Fair's fair, all around.
I have no personal problem about the poster under discussion. One even develops a certain fondness. At times. But fondness shouldn't obscure the issue any more than should religion. What matters is, Is this disruptive? Divisive? Supportive? More stress? More alienation?
As you know, this board provides a very significant refuge. It's important to take a look at things that diminish that quality or diverge from the stated purpose.
This is the very essence of administration, don't you think?
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 20:07:29
In reply to Re: Accusatory and Put Downs questions » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 18:58:07
> As you know, this board provides a very significant refuge. It's important to take a look at things that diminish that quality or diverge from the stated purpose.
In fact, I'd like, as much as possible, for this board to provide a refuge even to those with unpopular points of view. I liked Dinah's proposal:
> > perhaps as an exercise, you could cut and paste a few [posts by others] to Word, substitute your name for Lou's and [something you care about] for religion. Then wait a couple of days before reading over them. If they don't hurt your feelings, then perhaps I am [reacting the way I am] due to my own issues.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5260.htmlBob
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 23:17:56
In reply to Support for opinions, etc., posted by BeARdEdLaDY on May 23, 2002, at 11:33:57
Magnificent post, Beardy. Really. I think.> something I promised myself would not happen <
Ahem. AH-Hem.
Zo
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.