![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 12:12:41
In reply to Final Summation of Concerns..., posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 11:51:35
Perhaps this all boils down to different people being triggered in different ways by this issue.
You are triggered in your issue. I am triggered in mine, which is having been teased and tormented in middle school because I was different.
I see these threads and am overwhelmed by the old issue and spend days crying about it.
Why do people assume that "unpopular" people or different people (and I am talking about myself here, no one else) have no feelings and cannot be hurt by rejection and unkindness? Is it because it is assumed that if we had feelings we would conform to the wishes of the majority? That if we had feelings we wouldn't annoy the majority?
Or do people realize they are hurting others but just don't care because they feel the people they are hurting deserve it or are unworthy of compassion and loving-kindness?
And why do the people who may feel a degree of compassion watch and do nothing? I think that hurt worst of all when I was in middle school. That there were people who were uncomfortable by what was done to me, but did nothing.
So you are triggered in your way and I am triggered in mine. And as much as I care about you, I can't not take it personally. Because I was Lou and I will be Lou again. And (I'm going to bring religion into this), what is done to ANY of my brothers (because Lou is certainly not the least of my brothers)is also done unto me. I do hope you won't take offense at my standing in solidarity with Lou on this issue, because I would stand in solidarity with you or with anyone else in the same situation.
And so I think I too will take a break from the board, unless Lou thinks that I can be of assistance to him in some way. And I hope those that feel differently on the subject will not hold it against me. It is an issue I feel so strongly about, because I made the decision long ago that it was far better to be disliked and unpopular than it was to be unkind.
With love and respect,
Dinah
Posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 12:21:37
In reply to Re: Issues - Krazy Kat and Lou, posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 12:12:41
Posted by kid_A on May 24, 2002, at 14:10:35
In reply to Final Summation of Concerns..., posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 11:51:35
First I wan't to say that I agree entirely with what KK is saying about the posts, especially this particular quote:"There is a definite personal issue with it as well -- he's bringing up many of the bad things from my childhood, many of the reasons I put off getting help. His posts are Offensive to me, and that's a civility rule."
Now I'd like to reiterate a few things. First, this board is not a democracy. If Dr Bob wanted to delete every single message that contained the letter Q within it, it would be within his right to do so. It wouldn't really go very far to promoting conversation, but thats neither here nor there.
Second, Lets use an analogy of a newspaper. There is the main section for all the "news", theres a style section, want-ads, etc etc...
Now what a few people are proposing is that it's unfair to seperate the Style section from the News section because it somehow then makes the Style section inferior or infers somehow that it is inferior to the News section.
I think if you look at the newspaper analogy you can see that this isn't the intent or the case.
I think, and this may be opinion, that the real reason that nobody wants to move theological posts to their own board is because they feel that they will no longer get any attention.
They certainly have an audience in the Social board, weather that audience is willing or not... The point is, if people want to throw the Style section away and never read it at all, thats their business, and if people choose not to visit the theology board, that is certainly analogous to the newspaper reference.
Oh, and by the way, I grew up being picked on for being different as well, and I don't quite think thats enough motivation for me to rally around someones cause, nor do I think it's applicable for comparison's sake... Just my opinion.
thanks...
Posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 15:23:08
In reply to Re: Issues - Krazy Kat and Lou, posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 12:12:41
Dinah:
I'm taking a break as well, so you really don't need to reply. We'll meet again at some juncture. :)
I certainly did not mean to offend you, or Lou for that matter, in any way. It amazes me, frankly, that you might think my intentions would be other than good.
I don't recall teasing Lou. I have valid concerns re: the dangers of his posts. I am different as well, all of us here are, and would certainly fit in more with Lou's group than the popular one if I were in school.
Take some time off. I don't object at all to your defense of Lou. I just don't understand it - they seem like different issues to me.
- kk
Posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 15:30:36
In reply to Final Summation of Concerns + My own thoughts..., posted by kid_A on May 24, 2002, at 14:10:35
Hi Kid_A,
> Now I'd like to reiterate a few things. First, this board is not a democracy. If Dr Bob wanted to delete every single message that contained the letter Q within it, it would be within his right to do so. It wouldn't really go very far to promoting conversation, but thats neither here nor there.
No, that's not quite true. Everyone is subject to the law of the land, our friend Dr. Bob included. Federal law requires that religious speech be given equal status as other forms of speech in the market place of ideas. In other words, to remove posts from PSB, solely because the posts are religious in nature, is illegal. In legal terms this is referred to as "viewpoint discrimination."
> Second, Lets use an analogy of a newspaper. There is the main section for all the "news", theres a style section, want-ads, etc etc...
>
> Now what a few people are proposing is that it's unfair to seperate the Style section from the News section because it somehow then makes the Style section inferior or infers somehow that it is inferior to the News section.
>
> I think if you look at the newspaper analogy you can see that this isn't the intent or the case.Please note that, within each and every section of the newspaper, constitutionally guaranteed speech is protected. Religious speech can not be censored (solely because it is religious in nature) in the Sports Section, or in the Style Section, or in the Classified Section, or in the News Section, or any in other section. Nor, might I add, in the PSB section.
> I think, and this may be opinion, that the real reason that nobody wants to move theological posts to their own board is because they feel that they will no longer get any attention.IMHO, it's probably best to keep speculations of other people's motives to yourself since that falls under one of the subcategories of incivility.
Thanks for your interest in this matter.
-- Ron
Posted by oracle on May 24, 2002, at 15:58:03
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 15:30:36
> No, that's not quite true. Everyone is subject to the law of the land, our friend Dr. Bob included. Federal law requires that religious speech be given equal status as other forms of speech in the market place of ideas.
Oracle here,
Sorry but you do not have this right here. You have misunderstood your rights, they are not nor never have been absolute.
Posted by kid_A on May 24, 2002, at 16:12:14
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good, posted by oracle on May 24, 2002, at 15:58:03
> Oracle here,
>Oracle, are you StJames!? You two have mysteriously similar posting styles... :)
cheers...
Posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 16:20:43
In reply to Re: Issues - Krazy Kat and Lou » Dinah1, posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 15:23:08
I seem to have hurt you Krazy Kat, and that was very far from my intention. You have always been kind to me. I didn't mean to attribute any bad motives to you, or any motivation at all, other than to agree with you that both our reactions probably have to do with old wounds and old issues. Yours to do with religion, mine to do with middle school. That's what your post set me to thinking.
My questions about people's thinking arise from my old experiences in middle school and what I wondered then, and how those thoughts were triggered by this thread, and several others over the time I've been here. That's one reason I have to keep taking time off, and one reason I think I'm not cut out for interaction with others.
I'm certain you didn't set out to hurt Lou and certainly not to hurt me. That thought wouldn't have occurred to me. You wouldn't have known about my issues.
But perhaps as an exercise, you could cut and paste a few of your posts to Word, substitute your name for Lou's and dogs (only because I know we both love them) for religion. Then wait a couple of days before reading over them. If they don't hurt your feelings, then perhaps I am overreacting due to my own issues.
I am terribly sorry for causing you any distress whatsoever. If there is anything I can do to make amends, please let me know.
Humbly,
Dinah
Posted by kid_A on May 24, 2002, at 16:30:20
In reply to I am so sorry. » krazy kat, posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 16:20:43
Dinah,
I just wanted to let you know that I too had no intentions of trying to cause you any distress about anything I've said in relation to this whole matter... Perhaps we disagree, but I have always found you a joy to talk to and I hope that I haven't in any way put you off in any of the stances I've made on this subject... If so, please accept my humble appologies...I think at times in this thread I have gotten a little too heated and lost sight of what constitutes civil discussion, and for that I am ruefull... In the end, I think I've tried to remain as calm as possible in the discussion, at least that has been my intent...
Also, I wish you all the luck and strength with what you are going through right now, please look out for yourself, first and foremost...
Much Love,
Kid A.
Posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 16:39:52
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good, posted by oracle on May 24, 2002, at 15:58:03
Posted by beardedlady on May 24, 2002, at 16:41:32
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 15:30:36
> No, that's not quite true. Everyone is subject to the law of the land, our friend Dr. Bob included. Federal law requires that religious speech be given equal status as other forms of speech in the market place of ideas. In other words, to remove posts from PSB, solely because the posts are religious in nature, is illegal. In legal terms this is referred to as "viewpoint discrimination."
This is not quite true. If some religious speech is deemed offensive, if it falls within the guidelines of incivility, if it accuses or blames or does anything against Dr. Bob's civility contract, it has no place, nor any rights, on this board.
I like to cuss. Others find it offensive. Dr. Bob says no cussing. This easily falls under "viewpoint discrimination," too. Why weren't you rallying behind our legal right to cuss?
Right now, it's our debate. Unless someone takes legal action, we will never know which freedoms are protected on this web site. I do know this: I'd rather just do what Dr. Bob wants us to do here. I don't want to make trouble for him. I'd prefer that Lou do his thing and that others not read it and stop arguing about it. But If I were Dr. Bob, I'd be so frustrated right now that I'd shut the whole show down. Maybe he has more patience than that.
> Please note that, within each and every section of the newspaper, constitutionally guaranteed speech is protected. Religious speech can not be censored (solely because it is religious in nature) in the Sports Section, or in the Style Section, or in the Classified Section, or in the News Section, or any in other section. Nor, might I add, in the PSB section.
This is wrong, too. The legal word for censorship is editor. You can't submit a piece about religion and sports to the sports section, have the editor reject it, and cry foul, as if you are being censored. Yet you are. Maybe your work wasn't good enough. Or maybe the editor didn't want god in that section of the paper. But it's not your Constitutional right to be published in someone else's newspaper, even if it's just the Letters section.
You have the right to self publish and not be censored. But this is Dr. Bob's site. It is not yours. You're pretty much Constitutionally guaranteed freedom to publish your own web site.
> IMHO, it's probably best to keep speculations of other people's motives to yourself since that falls under one of the subcategories of incivility.
IMHO, KidA's speculation was neither accusatory nor uncivil nor a put down.
lateformy beer-dy
Posted by beardedlady on May 24, 2002, at 16:47:08
In reply to Re: Time will tell. Stay tuned. (nm) » oracle, posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 16:39:52
And Ron? What does "time will tell" mean? I'm not accusing you of anything, but this does sound like a threat, don't you think? One could easily draw a conclusion that you are planning legal action, so if this is not your plan, it would maybe be better if you didn't post things that sounded as if they were threatening. (As I said, I'm not accusing; I'm merely trying to figure out what you mean.)
Lots of people here are quite ill and really need this board for support and comaraderie. It would be a shame. Really.
Posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 16:47:54
In reply to Dinah - Please read... » Dinah1, posted by kid_A on May 24, 2002, at 16:30:20
Your post means a lot to me. Of course you haven't put me off, I have seen your kindness in so many situations, even when you were under a lot of stress yourself.
Take care of yourself too.
And I may stick around at chat and here, if I haven't offended too many of my old friends. The next few months are going to be enormously stressful for me. And I will need all the laughs and release this forum provides. (And with all that Luvox I'll be taking I might not get so upset over threads. I swear you won't know me when I'm full of Luvox.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 19:16:25
In reply to Final Summation of Concerns..., posted by krazy kat on May 24, 2002, at 11:51:35
> The best way for me to handle Lou's posts IS to ignore them. I agree with the wise Mair, IsoM, and Mouse who have all told me that.
>
> Unfortunately, they are not ignored and I do see a serious danger with them, so I respond.You're referring to his posts about medications, not those about the gates, right? It's fine to respond -- different points of view are encouraged here -- but if you could do so with what you see as the problems with his suggestions or with suggestions of your own, that would both address any danger *and* be civil.
> There is a definite personal issue with it as well -- he's bringing up many of the bad things from my childhood, many of the reasons I put off getting help.
That's a nice insight. But here, different points of view are encouraged, so hopefully people will be free to make up their own minds.
> I'm concerned that he will return again and again, even if blocked, and turn social into a rally for Christianity. Even when he has been ignored, he keeps on replying to himself.
Let's cross that bridge if we come to it. As far as I can remember, he's respected his blocks. And replying to himself doesn't hurt anyone.
Bob
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 19:51:35
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good » kid_A, posted by Ron Hill on May 24, 2002, at 15:30:36
Ron, . . .unless I'm mistaken (and it wouldn't be the first time) you are theologically aligned with Lou, roughly speaking?. .so let me speak to that point.
There's all kinds of ways to be uncivil. I'd personally rather someone speak their feelings, no matter how harsh, than to have this awful abiding sense. . .which I do, here. . that someone is being deeply uncivil whilst carefully wording things so as to seem not to be. I could be wrong, as I said. But I thought I'd let you know how unfriendly this sort of thing can feel, from the other side. Like, this is not somebody I feel like I could talk to, this is not somebody it feels like would hear me. Something I think women tend to especially sense.
Bringing up legal issues frequently only adds to that feeling. As does being real formal, being formal and legal when one really just disagrees---tell me if I've got this wrong--and being friendly when one does. These are not qualities, BTW, that can be changed just by one's wording. .. They do come across.. .
I thought you might be concerned to know that it feels kind of awful, this having a sense that no matter what another poster posts, he is pumping for his religious beliefs. It feels. . .unsupportive. In practice, it *is* unsupportive. It raises the most basic issues of trust.
When someone has any single issue that runs through their posts, it tends to put people off. It puts me off, because I feel like they aren't here for the same reason I am. . .and because these are deeply vulnerable things that we are sharing, on this board.
Our hope, I think all of us, is that everyone here respect and respond to the context, which is the sharing of intensely personal, vulnerable stuff, even issues of life and death.
I could be off-base, but I get the impression that people are responded to in a friendly supportive way when their posts affirm your religious beliefs, and are presented with very formal posts with citing legal issues when their posts do not.
It's sooo important people be as emotionally honest as they can possibly be, here. In fact, now that I think about it, that IS support.. .and it is also prerequisite for Trust.
Zo
Oh. Where does Jesus come in? I think of him as the epitome of emotional and spiritual honesty. . .As someone I could trust.
So yes, I guess I believe that at bottom, Civility is indistinguishable from Christianity; both demand we dwell in not only spiritual but also emotional--which is part of spiritual, isn't it?---kinship with others.
Hope this doesn't wander; I'm migrainey, but wanted to give some thoughts.
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 19:57:18
In reply to Re: I'll try this one last time and call it good, posted by oracle on May 24, 2002, at 15:58:03
Posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 20:22:20
In reply to could you explain Time will tell? thanks! (nm) » oracle, posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 19:57:18
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:06:30
In reply to Re: Response to Concerns..., posted by Dr. Bob on May 24, 2002, at 19:16:25
Friends,
Today, I looked at all of these posts and anguished over as to whether I should leave this board or not. After reading you concerns, I have come to the conclusion that what I am saying is hurting a lot of people. I have hurt Kid_A, and Zo and Kiddo and Beardedlady and many others. I have polarised the people into two camps. There is anger from many, there are people that want me to be off the board, there are people that think of what I am saying as rubbish, there are peopple that tell others not to read my posts. And I admire Dr. Bob for his impartial handling of this matter. I was faced with his position many times as a High School teacher.
So I am going to give my "final Summation" on this topic and tell what I think is the solution on my next post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:23:30
In reply to Lou;s response to Concerns..., posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:06:30
Friends,
Today I saw some people illuminate in me. I saw them radiating a light. It was a bright light. The light emminated from evry one of the people that contributed to this discussion. There really was just one camp, and that camp was us. It is not divided into me, Jon Hill, Dinah 1 and all the others. I only saw one great light. It was the light of reason. It was the light of seeking the truth. It was the light of life, for all that posted were wanting the darkness to be dispelled by the light. I believe that we all are seeking the same light. The light that opens up the room of mystery. We want to open the books in that room. They will tell us the mysterys of why we are like us. But we all are in different rooms in the library of truth. I want to know what you have read in your books. And I want to tell you what I have read in my books.
I will tell you how I think that we can do that in my next post.
Lou
Posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 21:25:37
In reply to Lou;s response to Concerns..., posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:06:30
Lou, before you decide anything, could you think about Zo's very well thought out and thoughtful post on the thread above. I think she is speaking for a lot of people.
By the way, you're right about Dr. Bob. My mom would be very pleased with him.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:31:42
In reply to Re: Lou;s response to Concerns... » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 21:25:37
Dinah,
I read her post and she said that she could be wrong. I believe that she is wrong.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:42:24
In reply to Re: Civility and Jesus » Ron Hill, posted by Zo on May 24, 2002, at 19:51:35
Friends,
Zo has made many obsevations that I would want to clarify. But at the same time, I am not admonishing Zo or critisiseing Zo's deductions for Zo's deductions would be made by almost evryone. You see, there are assumptions that most people make when I talk about the Road to the Crown of Life. but these assumptions are only revealed to be wrong when I finish the 7 Gates. Now I havn't finished the last 2 Gates yet, and the ending is NOT what anyone would expect. It is shocking.
So there is no condemnation to Zo or anyone else for assuming cirtian things.
I will, next, tell about the assumptions.
Lou
Posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 21:51:46
In reply to Re: Lou;s response to Dinah's suggestion.. » Dinah1, posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:31:42
Oops Lou. Sorry I wasn't more clear. The post I meant was one on a different thread called Zo writes to Lou. I'll try to link it but I'm no good at that.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020510/msgs/5286.html
For what it's worth, I realize that the rider is not Jesus, because you have been clear about your religious background.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:57:48
In reply to Re: Lou;s response to Dinah's suggestion.. » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah1 on May 24, 2002, at 21:51:46
Dinah,
I will have to respond to that post also, for there are some things that I need to clarify about what she said in the post that needs for me to answer. I will answer some of those statements of hers in the next post.
Lou
Posted by beardedlady on May 25, 2002, at 6:11:29
In reply to Lou;s response to Concerns..., posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2002, at 21:06:30
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.