![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 51. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 19:20:10
In reply to To those who have decided to leave.., posted by judy1 on July 9, 2002, at 11:30:13
Yes, what Judy said . . . except she forgot to say, don't go and um, stay.
(I've been pissed off and left before too, I mean all these freakin boards! but I came back, it's just like a happy drug -- gotta deal with them there side effects)
Posted by Raven on July 9, 2002, at 19:30:13
In reply to how to keep in touch... » Raven, posted by IsoM on July 9, 2002, at 0:52:58
Posted by Kar on July 9, 2002, at 22:25:49
In reply to Re: To those who have decided to leave.., posted by Lini on July 9, 2002, at 19:20:10
gotta deal with them there side effects)
Yuperee. And if you can't deal with the side effects, stop taking the drug if you want to. Leave it at that. Can't blame everything on the Dr. (wink wink, nudge nudge). But if the drug seemed to help you, and you were helping others when you were on it, maybe reconsider and augment? :))...
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 11:54:17
In reply to To those who have decided to leave.., posted by judy1 on July 9, 2002, at 11:30:13
> I think by simply ignoring the offending party, they always leave... 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.
OK, this is an experiment. Could you please rephrase those two sentences? Thanks (again :-) for being a guinea pig,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 12:18:56
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 11:34:04
> 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.
I disagree. And have tried to explain this before. I consider the perspective of the supportee more important than the perspective of the supporter:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6085.html
And someone can mean well, but still post something uncivil:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6060.html
"Tough love", for example, can be too tough.
> 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.
Sometimes intention does enter into it. But isn't that how you think it should be?
> As regards Lou's endless experience and ... (TCA West), there's no need to give an example.
Well, it's hard to get specific without specifics...
> 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.
Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries and a Beautiful Daughter? :-)
Bob
Posted by beardedlady on July 10, 2002, at 13:59:49
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 12:18:56
> > 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.
>
> I disagree. And have tried to explain this before. I consider the perspective of the supportee more important than the perspective of the supporter:-----------
Fine. Disagree. Your third sentence is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with our original discussion of intent and was, in fact, a point only recently made.
-----------> And someone can mean well, but still post something uncivil: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6060.html
-----------
I don't think that's ever been a topic of debate. But why are you posting a URL that simply duplicates what you're saying? It doesn't add context and it doesn't prove anything except that you said it before, which isn't in question.
-----------
> > 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.
>
> Sometimes intention does enter into it. But isn't that how you think it should be?------------
Yes, Dr. Bob, intention should enter into it. But no, that's not how I think it should be. It should be fair. The point you keep ignoring is that one person repeated my exact post, and you determined hers was negative and mine was not.
------------>
> > As regards Lou's endless experience and ... (TCA West), there's no need to give an example.
>
> Well, it's hard to get specific without specifics...---------
WHOA! TALK ABOUT OUT OF CONTEXT! My next bunch of sentences told you to look at ANY and ALL of their posts for an example, even explained what I meant. What I'm not willing to do, however, is supply the URLs of all the posts; it would be time consuming and futile. And you're obviously not even willing to look into it.
----------> > 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.
>
> Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries and a Beautiful Daughter? :-)-----------
For some. For others, it's a lot of pain and suicidal ideation and a board that won't be able to help them as much as it used to--not because, as Shar has said, we political folks don't care about those in pain, but because we need support, too. And we're not getting it from you. We're getting a bunch of one-liners and sarcasm disguised as innocent cuteness like above.I hope you give Sandra Dee the apology she deserves, even if you won't do it on the board, so everyone can see that, maybe, under it all, you're a mensch.
boardy
Posted by judy1 on July 10, 2002, at 14:18:14
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » judy1, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2002, at 11:54:17
> I think by simply ignoring the offending party, they always leave... 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.OK, this is an experiment. Could you please rephrase those two sentences? Thanks (again :-) for being a guinea
pig,OK, I will try- but I warn you that it will take more than 2 sentences :-). My first feeling is that some posters (and there have been several) feed on the constant attention they receive- once that stops they ALWAYS leave. This board belongs to Dr. Bob, he has put a great deal of work into it, and I feel does his best to put the safety of all posters first. Since it IS his board, you must play by HIS rules. You may not agree, but ask yourself if you have gained a lot of positive support versus the negative of one poster (or perhaps how he is handled). I know I have gained immense support from many of you, and that is why this disturbs me so much. But I do understand triggers, and I feel time does put them in perspective and hope for your return. I agree with Lini to please stay, but understand the need to take a breather. I apologize for being so verbose- judy
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.