![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 17:10:20
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
>Anything anyone does on these boards can be attributed to whatever mental illness he may suffer from. So how do we determine that one person is just writing in his style and another is sloganeering or preaching or being unsupportive?
I don't know about sloganeering (never heard the term before), but you're right, these are all subjective terms, which is why we have a moderator to make those kind of calls. So actually, we don't determine it, Dr. Bob does.I think that sometimes someone could interpret the things that I write as "preachy" and I definitely have a "style" that is all my own. And if I wanted to respond with poetry or song lyrics to every post, I would probably annoy some analytical types. But, would I be being unsupportive? I don't think so. I really do think that that is the bottom line -- are you trying to be supportive, or is it obvious that you don't care how the other person feels or if you hurt their feelings?
Some people on this site like to draw things with the various symbols on the key board. No one thinks that this is unsupportive, cause I think that everyone understands CTRLALTDEL's (I think that is the right handle) intent to be positive and part of his/her style of communicating. I guess I think that that is where you draw the line, based on someone's intention (not ability) to communicate positively. And like I have said above, I think people need more opportunities to clarify their intent before they get the boot.
-L
Posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 17:10:20
Lini:
> I don't know about sloganeering (never heard the term before), but you're right, these are all subjective terms, which is why we have a moderator to make those kind of calls. So actually, we don't determine it, Dr. Bob does.Dr. Bob has said that he wants to make this board safe and supportive. He does a pretty good job. But he gave a few PBCs to a poster who quoted Salvation Army literature, saying that this was sort of like advertising, or sloganeering. I never understood why it wasn't allowed. Many people quoted song lyrics. I wrote posts in support of Ani Difranco. Phil made the analogy that if someone put, "Eat at Joe's" on the bottom of every post, it would be like selling something. Well how can one sell the Salvation Army? It's not something you can buy. And he wasn't saying "I did this" or "you should do this"; he was quoting.
I see many similarities between what that poster did and what some others do. When I ask where the line is drawn, I'm asking Dr. Bob how he makes that distinction. Why is it proselytising in one place and not another?
I think it's okay to ask for clarification, as well as to disagree with the moderator in a civil way. Moderators make mistakes. And yes, it's his ball, and if he doesn't want us to play with it, he can go home. And if we don't like the game he wants to play with it, we can go home. But I would hope Dr. Bob wouldn't act that way and that others wouldn't offer that as a valid reason why he could. But I am seeing more and more posters go home because they don't like this game anymore.
> I think that sometimes someone could interpret the things that I write as "preachy" and I definitely have a "style" that is all my own. And if I wanted to respond with poetry or song lyrics to every post, I would probably annoy some analytical types. But, would I be being unsupportive? I don't think so. I really do think that that is the bottom line -- are you trying to be supportive, or is it obvious that you don't care how the other person feels or if you hurt their feelings?
Dr. Bob told me long ago (on this very board) that it was difficult to determine someone's intention. I had asked him whether he really thought someone intended to hurt another (who actually wasn't hurt at all) and that intention should have been taken into consideration. He said that would be too difficult. When I told him he was already determining negative intention with every PBC or block he issues, he sort of agreed that he had to rely on interpreting intention to issue them.
> Some people on this site like to draw things with the various symbols on the key board. No one thinks that this is unsupportive, cause I think that everyone understands CTRLALTDEL's (I think that is the right handle) intent to be positive and part of his/her style of communicating.
I don't think that analogy is a good one. Before we had the Faith board, dozens of people complained about the same thing, and it was not the little animals drawn by Dr. Eamer. Nor has anyone complained about a preachy style or song lyrics or poetry or any of the other styles we have. Profanity and intolerance and downright rudeness are the usual causes for complaint. Religious answers to non-religious questions are another. And now that the faith board has been developed, the same answer to every different poster's thread is another.
>I guess I think that that is where you draw the line, based on someone's intention (not ability) to communicate positively. And like I have said above, I think people need more opportunities to clarify their intent before they get the boot.
I believe Zo attempts to communicate positively, yet her posts are scrutinized. And I have seen other posters say some absolutely horrible things to people and get a fourth and fifth PBC.
I have also seen someone get a week for saying evil things about a dead person and another get a four-week block for calling someone disruptive. Heck, I told a poster who had made a rude comment to Phil (something like, "Shut the hell up and go back to bed") that he'd made a rude comment, and I was given a PBC. I didn't say something someone could take as accusatory! I said a fact! "Shut the hell up" is a rude thing to say, especially to someone who was merely telling him that it was against the rules to post how to get meds without a prescription!
I agree with your above posts regarding parole. I have asked for similar things--especially with regard to intent. I hope you have better luck.
I'm totally sick about this, and I'm leaving the board too. I wanted to say goodbye in a better way, but I think most people who want to know how to get in touch with me. I may write a little farewell letter if I'm not blocked tomorrow.
But I find it a sad state of affairs that a person can get blocked for quoting me because my intention (from a post with no message, yet) was deemed to be better than that of someone who was clearly distressed about the way her questions were being answered.
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 21:21:38
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beardedlady,
Could you answer the following questions? If I have answers to them, then I will be better able to understand what your point is relavant to my use of the City of Peace and the Rider on the White Horse. It appears that you want me to stop using the phrase, City of Peace, in all of my posts and I would like to know what you mean by that for you have posted, "Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace"
#1.. Does the phrase, City of Peace, have a quota that I should stop at in the number of times that I use it? If so, then what is the quota?
#2..If I go over the quota, if there is one, then what phrase would you suggest that I substitute it for?
#3..I can not separate my experiance from the City of Peace. So if I have to use a different phase after the quota, if there is one, then for what reason, if there is one, would I have to stop using it at some arbitrary number ?
Your answers will be appreciated by me, for I would want to know what you suggest in order for me to modify my style, if necessary.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 21:46:16
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beardedlady,
Could you answer the following for me in order foe me to know what board my posts would belong on if I used the phrase, "City of Peace"? I want to tell of my experiance and I was led to believe that the faith board was created for all of us to use to post about faith in our lives.
#1.. If I have to stop using the phrase, City of Peace, on the faith board, then what board ,could I , use it on?
#2.. If I can not use the phrase on any board, then why does the faith board exist?
#3..There is a thread now on the faith board titled ,"Are ther any Wikkans or pagens ...?
Are the answers to that thread "prosalytising, according to you?
#4..If they are not, then why are mine that use the phrase, "City of Peace"?
I feel that I will be better able to understand your objection to me using the phrase, "City of Peace" if you answer those questions for me and we will be better able to, perhaps, modify my posts in a way that I can still tell of my experiance and not use the phrase, "City of Peace."
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 22:01:26
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beadedlady,
Could you answer the following question for me for I would like to clarify if you consider the following post pros. or not pros.. If I know that, then I feel that I could communicate better with you.
#1 ..There is a post on the faith board now where a poster says that she saw Jesus in the sky in New Mexico. The title of the thread is "What do you think about God." That post is advocating for those to beleive in God, because she is a witness to the experiance. Is her telling of her experiance acceptable? If it is, why would mine not be? I want to tell my experiance on the faith board as this poster has done, so it would be of great benifit to me for you to clarify the differences, if any , of her post and mine that include my experiance.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 23:30:45
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
> I see many similarities between what that poster did and what some others do. When I ask where the line is drawn, I'm asking Dr. Bob how he makes that distinction. Why is it proselytising in one place and not another?
Could I ask you to pick out an example of each? Then I'll be able to take a look at the specifics and do my best to explain.
> Dr. Bob told me long ago (on this very board) that it was difficult to determine someone's intention. I had asked him whether he really thought someone intended to hurt another (who actually wasn't hurt at all) and that intention should have been taken into consideration. He said that would be too difficult. When I told him he was already determining negative intention with every PBC or block he issues, he sort of agreed that he had to rely on interpreting intention to issue them.
Did I really say that? Regarding every PBC? If you could find that post, I'd like to see it. IMO, trying to interpret intention is such a can of worms...
Bob
Posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
I have been a lurker here for the past 8 months. I haven’t posted anything yet because I’m always hesitant to reveal my situation for fear of making others uncomfortable. I started posting on another board and had very few replies to my posts as others probably thought, well, ‘What the heck can I say to her?’ after telling that I’m terminally ill and that my husband of 31 years just divorced me. I usually am a little depressed which is why I visit PB.
There, I did it! That was tough!
Now the reason that I’m posting now is to say that I’m really, really disappointed that so many of the personalities here that I enjoy reading are biting the dust, i.e. KK,IsoM, Zo, now Beardy, and I’m sure others I may have forgotten to mention. I will, and do miss their personalities, their humor, their sincere kindness and the often wise advice they offer others. I drew vicariously off of it.
Can lurkers feel unsupported? You betcha!
Raven
Posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 23:55:43
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
>I’m really, really disappointed that so many of the personalities here that I enjoy reading are biting the dust, i.e. KK,IsoM, Zo, now Beardy, and I’m sure others I may have forgotten to mention.
...I can join you in feeling disappointed. It is hard to build relationships (or think you are) and then have people split, for whatever reason. (Can you tell I have abandonment issues?)
...I have a hard time reconciling the exodus based on administrative disagreements which would be moot on most other boards because no poster's input is typically sought or attended to.
...However, if you continue to lurk, Raven, you will find new people who come to participate and share themselves and lend support. It won't be another IsoM or KK...or whomever, but we deal with the aftermath of their choices whether we do it sadly or matter-of-factly or angrily or whatever. It is the nature of the boards that this happens.
I hope you will be able to receive support from those who remain. And, there are many of us here who don't see a much brighter day on the horizon, so, during your dark times you are in good company.
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:17:29
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Raven, posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 23:55:43
> if you continue to lurk, Raven, you will find new people who come to participate and share themselves and lend support.
>
> I hope you will be able to receive support from those who remain.Also, people sometimes leave and then come back, so there's always that hope, too...
Bob
Posted by IsoM on July 9, 2002, at 0:52:58
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
Raven, what kind words you've said. I think this has all come to a head & that's why so many of us are leaving.
Am I emtionally upset & hurt over all this mix-up? No. But I feel that wrongs are being committed here & my sense of principles & my honour bothers me to continue posting here & thereby support an administrative style I feel is wrong. I DO NOT plan to return after this post to you, but I checked back this time as I heard dear Beardy was leaving too. I'd feel like a hypocrit to continue posting here at a forum I feel is unjustly managed. It's not my board & we have no real influence here, so I choose not to play this game any more.
Would you like to keep in touch? Would you like whatever support we may be able to offer without 'telling' you what you *should* do? Then I'd feel honoured if you'd like to email me at
isomorphix at shaw dot caI wrote it like this to not let my address show in searches. Any one else who'd like to stay in touch, feel free to email me. There's a number of us who hope to do something for others of like ilk as us.
Posted by tabitha on July 9, 2002, at 2:53:09
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
> Do you believe it's only prosyletizing when it's someone who doesn't have a mental illness? Isn't all prosyletizing an obsession? Some may argue that it's a form of mental illness or a manifestation of it, in which case it can't be fair to make a "no prosyletizing" rule.
>
> And since this is a mental health board, we'll also have to excuse those who lash out at others, as they are suffering from mood disorders and often can't control their tempers.Beardy,
No I would not excuse behavior that breaks the rules even if it is a symptom of an illness. I'd say throw em out, or lock em up, or whatever it takes to make the world safe for the rest of us. Looking at what might be contributing to the behavior just makes it easier for me to manage my emotional reaction to it (compassion feels better than anger to me).
I get that your disagreement is more with the admin policy & consistency of enforcement, rather than the city of peace stuff itself. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'll miss you if you leave, you're certainly one whose posts I look forward to seeing. I'm sad too that so many regulars have left or been blocked over this stuff.
-tabitha
Posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 6:08:24
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:17:29
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4557.html
One of them.
Posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 6:10:34
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 23:30:45
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4512.html
My post that led up to yours.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:04:39
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
Friends,
I have a suggestion that could possibly be helpful in this discussion. This concerns where the line should be drawn.
I beleive that the line is where someone is promroting or advancing a particular religion. Statements like ,I am Catholic and you should join Roman Catholisism would be an obvious crosssing of the line.
Statemants like, "the Jahovah's Witnesses should not be allowed to speak here" would also be a statement that would go over the line for the opposite reason. Then, of course,in my opinion, so would "please stop talking about the Rider on the White Horse"
Now , if a person said, "I saw Jesus in the sky in New Mexico, that person is not promoting a particular religion, but just telling her experiance. Someone could also say that they entered Nirvana and saw..... But if that person said that they saw Jesus and He said to join the Morman denomination, then that would be promoting a particular religion and go over the line.
I base this on the rullings about this by the U.S Supreme Court and the Canadian and British rullings. Those countries have freedom of religion . But there is more and I will go on.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:25:04
In reply to Lou's Line that could be drawn » beardedlady, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:04:39
Friends,
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the principle of equal rights are intertwined. The U.S. Constitution intertwines them in the First Amendment and 14th amandments to the Constitution.
When Thomas Jefferson saw that the Constitution could have the potential to allow a tyrannical majority to take away peoples rights, he ammended the Constitution to prevent that. For he said that the majority rules, but they can not take away the rights of the minority. that is what the "Bill of Rights" is about.
Jefferson's torch for equal rights has been carried the last 226 years by those that believe in the light of freedom. Like Abraham Lincoln, M.L.King, Muhammad Ali, Madylin O'Hara, Frederick Douglas, Abbe Hoffman, and many others.
I have experianced and felt the pain of the lash of descrimination. I will also carry the torch of freedom . Some may think that it is an obsession to do so. And it is! It was an obsession with the Mahatma Gahndi. It was an obsession with M.L.King. It was an obsession with Patric Henry. He said,"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH".
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 8:50:44
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 6:10:34
> in order for something to be sarcasm, it has to be intended to hurt. I believe intention should have some weight in determining whether you issue blocks or PBCs. You told me once that it was not possible to determine intent.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4512.html> *Some* weight, OK, deal. :-)
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4557.htmlThanks for finding that. I think what I meant was, sometimes what appears to be someone's intent does need to be given some weight. But that's not quite saying every PBC depends on a determination of intent:
> Dr. Bob told me long ago (on this very board) that it was difficult to determine someone's intention. I had asked him whether he really thought someone intended to hurt another (who actually wasn't hurt at all) and that intention should have been taken into consideration. He said that would be too difficult. When I told him he was already determining negative intention with every PBC or block he issues, he sort of agreed that he had to rely on interpreting intention to issue them.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6105.htmlBob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 9:52:32
In reply to Lou's Line that could be drawn-part 2, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:25:04
Friends,
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can not yell out "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and claim freedom of speech.
In a recent court case near Cincinnati, a person put a burning cross on the front lawn of a minority and unpopular family. The cross- burner claimed freedom of speech. The court rulled that when speech is intimidating, then it is not constitutionally protected. The burning cross implies intimidation and a threat. There is fear planted in those that lived in the house where the burning cross was lighted. There is the threat that if they do not leave the town, then something bad will happen to them. The cross -burner is now in a federal prison.
Many of the cross-burners friends left the town in sympathy with the cross-burners. The town now is one of the towns that developers are comming to and the property values have gone up tremendously. Their school system now is highly regarded and the community is thriving both economically and socialy. For the town was once segregated, now those barriers are torn down a the community is diverse and pluristic.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 10:33:23
In reply to Lou's Line that could be drawn-part 3, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 9:52:32
Friends,
I have posted that the line, as I see it, that could be crossed is when you promote a particular religion. But this is tempered when a person has an experiance with religion. You see, the lady that saw Jesus in the sky in New Mexico was really promoting Chrisianity, for she didn't see another figure associated with another religion. But it is what she saw, and she can not separate what she experianced. That is not going over the line, even though she mentioned Jesus.
Someone could also say that they "believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." And someone here did post that. What you believe is not pros. ,as I understand prosylytising. For isn't the faith board a place to say what you believe about your faith?
Now for me to say to that poster to please stop using the phrase, "Father, Son , Holy ghost in your post would, to me, be uncivil because I know that they can not separate the phrase from their faith. And the faith board is created for that purpose.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 11:26:52
In reply to Lou's Line that could be drawn-part 2, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:25:04
Friends,
Thomas Jefferson saw a great problem with freedom of religion. He was afriad that people would be intimidated to be the religion that the state promotes. So he put in the amendmants to the constitution a prohibition for the state to advance or promote religion. He wanted the state to show neutrality towards religion. He reffered to it as the wall of separation between church and state.
So the government can not favor any religion. they must be neutral towards religion.
Now I think that this board is being established by the admin. with that concept in mind, for the faith board is open to all faiths and the admin. is showing neutrality towards all the posters there. There are Catholics, Wiccans, Pagens, and others all sharing their faith. And the admin. is erecting a wall of separation between it and the posters. There is no favoritism shown by the admin. to any of them.
Lou
Posted by judy1 on July 9, 2002, at 11:30:13
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by tabitha on July 9, 2002, at 2:53:09
In my 2+ years of posting I have certainly been triggered by a couple of posters. Occasionally I would check the board and to my delight they were gone and I would return. Part of me thinks this poster is thriving on the attention (negative or positive it doesn't matter) that he garners, and in a sense many are supporting his presence that way. I think by simply ignoring the offending party, they always leave. I've read 1 of Lou's post, was completely confused and never answered. And in all the support I've asked for or given, his name never appears. To fight a person who moderates a board is a losing proposition, to fight a person over someone who really doesn't warrent the attention is also self-defeating. I sincerely hope that those who leave check in periodically and know you will be deeply missed. Take care, judy
Posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 11:34:04
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 8:50:44
Dr. Bob:
Because you tend to reply only to individual sentences out of posts (for the sake of time, I suppose), rather than posts, which keeps the whole thing in context, you misunderstood.
You must rely on intention in order to issue any PBC or block. When issuing it, you have determined that the poster's intention was negative. Otherwise, there'd be no need for a PBC or block. Sometimes a negative intention is obvious (as in the one that told Phil to shut up and go to bed, which I called rude, a statement of fact for which I got a PBC!). Sometimes it's not obvious. It's the nots that cause you difficulty and cause us dis-ease.
Before I finish here, I just want to say that I am disappointed that you issued someone a block for repeating something I said. You determined that she had a negative intention, and you determined that mine was somehow not negative. (You eventually said you didn't see it in time to issue the block, but in an earlier post said that Sandra Dee's was negative and mine was not.) How that happened I can't imagine (and sorry, I'm not going to provide the posts for you), since mine had no explanation until later.
What I do know is this: two wrongs may not make a right, but if you didn't PBC the first person who said it, the second person had a right to expect that this fell within the grounds of civility. If she knew it was wrong the first time, she wouldn't have repeated what I'd said. I think you owe her an apology, and you should revoke the block.
As regards Lou's endless experience and Ron Hall's pet project (TCA West), there's no need to give an example. TCA's posts had Salvation Army quotes at the end of them. Lou's posts are an example unto themselves. If you can't see the similarity between endlessly plugging a religious organization and endlessly plugging one's own religious experience (the key word here is ENDLESSLY), then I must be wrong. (And please don't mistake that for sarcasm.)
It's been mostly fun, but it's getting uncomfortable and unfriendly (and it feels somehow anti-woman, though I can't explain that feeling), and I have some fresh bing cherries to eat and a beautiful daughter to play with.
Ta.
Bearded Lady
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 11:44:27
In reply to To those who have decided to leave.., posted by judy1 on July 9, 2002, at 11:30:13
Judy 1,
You posted that you had read one of my posts and was completly confused. Could you , perhaps, share that post with me so that I can ,possibly, explaine it to you in order that any confusion could be cleared up?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 12:09:23
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 11:34:04
Beardedlady,
You talked about me "endlessly" plugging one's own religious experiance.
I want you to know that there are only 2 Gates left in my experiance. So the telling of it will end shortly. If you could, possibly, forgo your departure untill I reveal God's plan of salvation with the last 2 Gates, then my experiance will come to an end here.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on July 9, 2002, at 12:35:47
In reply to To those who have decided to leave.., posted by judy1 on July 9, 2002, at 11:30:13
Judy, it's not this particular poster alone. It's become an issue over administration of this site.
It's like actively supporting a government one knows to be corrupt so that others who are innocent can benefit, rather than restructuring the government or removing the corruption. Rather than living in such a 'country' & supporting the 'government', a number of us have chosen to move away & find a country that's open-minded & free , where one can truly express oneself & be *listened* to, not just heard & ignored.
Posters may come & go, but administration stays the same. It's his 'country', he can make the laws but we do havethe choice to leave & have. I thought initially that a greater good for the community was sincerely intended, but I no longer believe so - nor do many others.
I'm not blocked yet & I don't particulariy care if I do for this post. I really like you, Judy - you & many others, so I want others to know we're not playing games or acting like spoiled children. Principles & integrity are important to us. We're adults, most older & more experienced than our administrator & we STRONGLY disagree about the injustice of this. I can't speak for others but this last disagreement was the deciding factor for me. It was what clearly showed how matters were handled here - rigidly & with no leniency or mercy whatsoever.
I wonder if I can leave some quotes in passing for others to think about? If any one thinks this is just an internet web-site & there's not reason to be worked up over something so negligable in the long run, they're correct. But honour & integrity don't weigh the size of an issue - a small lie is no more pure or innocent than a big lie.
Quotes:
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor are a favored few booted and spurred to ride them legitimately by the grace of God." - Thomas Jefferson"Power corrupts the few, but weakness corrupts the many." - Eric Hoffer
"Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to anything but power for their relief." - Edmund Burke
"Reconciliation should be accompanied by justice, otherwise it will not last. While we all hope for peace it shouldn't be peace at any cost but peace based on principle, on justice." - Corazon Aquino
"Make no judgments where you have no compassion." - Anne Mccaffrey
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 13:05:17
In reply to Re: To those who have decided to leave.. » judy1, posted by IsoM on July 9, 2002, at 12:35:47
Friends,
There are being things being said about the disatisfaction with administrations decisions on this board.
If someone wanted to say that the admin. of an internet board would have to be patterned after the great democracys, I would be the first to agree. I would want the "rigt to due-process", freedom of speech and religion, equal protection and an appeal process with the right to reasonable bail.
But when I was a teacher, I found out that that system is impossible. And I see many similarities with an internet board and a school.
First of all, no one here is charged with a crime. And it is only when you are charged with a crime that you are entitiled to due-process.
Second, the penaltys given by the admin. do not cause a material loss. You are not damaged, so you have no damages.
Third, for there to be a democracy paterned after the great democracys, then the admin. would have to be elected.
Fourth, those elected would have to receive some compensation .
Fifth, there would have to be services provided to the citizens. But an internet board can not provide services.
Friends, let us reason together. To estabish a democracy here patterned after the great democracys would be an impossible dream. It is not, can not , and will not happen. It's impossible.
My suggestion is to protest but protest civily. My suggestion is to stay and work toward change, peacefully. My suggestion is to forgive.
Lou
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.