![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on May 15, 2005, at 14:32:34
In reply to » DrBob » Please identify the Babbler I offended, posted by 64bowtie on May 15, 2005, at 3:25:55
Rod,
In an attempt to clarify...
People can be offended by words or statements that are not necessarily about another Babbler or about themselves. If someone were to say "Person X is a monster" or "Person X's behavior is monstrous", I or someone else might disagree with you. I might be offended by that characterization of Person X. It doesn't matter whether Person X is a Babbler or not as far as the civility guidelines, as far as my interpretation of them.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 22:03:06
In reply to » DrBob » Please identify the Babbler I offended, posted by 64bowtie on May 15, 2005, at 3:25:55
> > I don’t support calling people monsters.
>
> Who? Which babbler are you refering to?I was afraid other people of that faith might feel accused or put down...
Bob
Posted by cockeyed on May 16, 2005, at 0:37:03
In reply to Re: my feelings of disgust, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 1:58:45
I'm not sure if I'm addressing this msg. properly or...well, I'll just note that I'm confused. First, I did not intend to be uncivil. I have issues with the term "faith". I was raised in a tradition of veiled intolerance, a parochial, often hypocritical interpretation of Christianity of the us against them variety. Our side was always correct, other religions or faiths were, if not "misguided", than heretical or pagan and those who practiced those faiths were to be pitied and left to god to "forgive".
It's very hard to be so circumspect. I did not intend to be uncivil. I stated that I regarded the concept of jihad as barbaric. I have come to regard many of the historical actions of Catholicism, the religion to which I was unyieldingly faithful, as barbaric and, perhaps worse, as calculatingly cruel and self-aggrandizing, much as the nazi phenomenon in Germany from '33 to '45, and the subversion of communism as practiced by the USSR which became an exercise in fascism and criminality as abhorrent as was nazi-ism. I think the fact is that I do not have the ability to understand civ-ility in light of 9/11. I was born three months after Pearl Harbor. That attack was an act of war. And it is my opinion that the destruction of the twin towers represented an act of war by militant Islamic jihadists. But I find that I confuse my personal disillusion with organized religion and...rage. I believe that's the most succint and accurate term. I find myself conflicted. I'd like to speak rationally and civilly about this psychological issue but I don't know if I have the skill to do so. But it's important to understand that there are many citizens who have been in a very real sense, traumatized by this event. How are we to discuss this damage. For me it's very real. and very confusing. Because I wrote about my sense that for many people Osama Bion Laden is a Savior figure, a hero to the downtrodden. I love my country but I often see echoes of the German Reich. And that is extremely troubling. yet this country after WWII acted to a way which allowed the conquered peoples to rebuild their societies. And I expect that the US will do the same in Iraq. But my misfortune seems to me to be that I have issues of personal anger which might lead me to write in an offensive or uncivil manner. I do not intend to do so, but I appear to have been judged as doing so. I accept that and will try to deal with my issues of anger without harming or offending others.
But the issue of FAITH is a bit of a land mine. I wonder why? Why should people of one faith attempt to impose their modes of belief upon others. Why a jihad? perhaps I don't understand the nature of that term. I take it to mean literally picking up a weapon and going out to conquer those who are not of the jihadists faith. And I can not understand that. So perhaps ignorance on my part has led to a perceived lack of civility. I tried to speak plainly and honestly but I recognize that i've gone beyond the pale. I'll try to keep my comments on FAITH limited to my own problems and issues which unfortunately have raised up to haunt me. But maybe I'll try another board or try limiting my ramblings to the mess in my head. By the way, has anyone...nope, that's not for here. I quit. thanks, more cockeyed than ever.
Posted by 64bowtie on May 16, 2005, at 1:34:15
In reply to Re: Which babbler, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 22:03:06
Dr-Bob,
You're making this all up in your mind... I mentioned no faith... Palestinians are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic, with a spattering of many other faiths... So you are refusing to support my disgust based on your mistaken pre-judgement that I was accusing a religion instead of what I was disgusted with, an individual here in America recruiting handicapped children to be suicide bombers...
Please! Remove my PBC!
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on May 16, 2005, at 1:50:25
In reply to Re: posts that might offend » 64bowtie, posted by gardenergirl on May 15, 2005, at 14:32:34
GG, I get it! I wonder when Dr-Bob will start supporting us and our feelings, and stop assuming and criticizing... I suggested a way out for him that he turn over part of his administration of Babble to his students for independent study credits, or perhaps intership credits... He retains a "Kung-Fu Grip" (GI-Joe doll, 1967), thus his limitations might then find themselves inside some of his dictates and judgements...
I wasn't ever generalizing as I have been accused of... I was very specific about an individual, not anybody at Babble... Dr-Bob pointed out that his accusation was for posting here... Here is Babble... Here is not the world at large... I can be disgusted by specific behavior... I simply hope Dr-Bob can find his way away from his stated fears and find it in his heart to support my disgust...
Rod
PS: Are you planning to be at the 10 year celebration in Chicago?
Posted by 64bowtie on May 16, 2005, at 1:59:18
In reply to Re: my feelings of disgust, posted by cockeyed on May 16, 2005, at 0:37:03
» cockeyed »
Please feel free to contact me at
www.wellnesstrek.4t.com... You'll see the email address there...Rod
Posted by Sabina on May 16, 2005, at 11:15:48
In reply to » Dr-Bob » Which Faith? » Dr. Bob, posted by 64bowtie on May 16, 2005, at 1:34:15
[I will clarify from the start that I have no desire to begin any sort of labored discourse with you. That's just my choice. If you do have anything you must say, please post it to the board only. Do *not* contact me off the board.]
Another point needs to be emphasized that has not been brought up in this matter. Sentiments of self censure were expressed over the subject matter of the original "anecdote" *three* times.
"I hope my following anecdote doesn't disgust you about me....."
"What I have here to share is horrifying... Please don't scorn me, I'm only the messenger......."
"(I almost disgusted myself even relating this story!!!)"
Then I started thinking about myself: If I were to apologize for a story three times *whilst* telling it, would it feel like something I should really be saying? Will there be repercussions for what I am saying? Maybe this is something best kept to myself?
Speaking from memory, any PBC resulting from relaying stories featuring potentially disturbing subject matter was given as a penalty for a lapse of discretion and good judgment, if anything. I don't remember now what wordings Dr. Bob used in those cases; i.e. Please be supportive, etc. (Forgive me if I don't go deep PB diving to find one.)
As for your insistence on wanting to know the names of the Babblers who agreed with your PBC, I'm stepping up, for what it's worth...but not for my religious beliefs.
I've also heard and seen some terrible things in my life, but that doesn't mean that they should be aired in this forum. There are plenty of other sites for that sort of thing (and no, I won't name them.)
Posted by partlycloudy on May 16, 2005, at 13:57:11
In reply to Re: Please do *not* remove the PBC » 64bowtie, posted by Sabina on May 16, 2005, at 11:15:48
Thank you, Sabina, for saying that.
partlycloudy
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 16, 2005, at 15:08:59
In reply to Re: Please do *not* remove the PBC » 64bowtie, posted by Sabina on May 16, 2005, at 11:15:48
Thanks Sabina
Good to see your name too!
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2005, at 0:24:23
In reply to Re: Which babbler, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 22:03:06
> your mistaken pre-judgement that I was accusing a religion instead of what I was disgusted with, an individual
If you accuse an individual, others of the same religion may also feel accused...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2005, at 0:24:26
In reply to Re: my feelings of disgust, posted by cockeyed on May 16, 2005, at 0:37:03
> I'll just note that I'm confused. First, I did not intend to be uncivil. I have issues with the term "faith".
> I ... will try to deal with my issues of anger without harming or offending others.
Thanks, and I'm glad you posted more about your issues. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you intended to be uncivil.
> I stated that I regarded the concept of jihad as barbaric. I have come to regard many of the historical actions of Catholicism, the religion to which I was unyieldingly faithful, as barbaric
That's more balanced, at least, but I'm still afraid others might feel accused or put down...
> it is my opinion that the destruction of the twin towers represented an act of war by militant Islamic jihadists. But I find that I confuse my personal disillusion with organized religion and...rage. I believe that's the most succint and accurate term. I find myself conflicted. I'd like to speak rationally and civilly about this psychological issue but I don't know if I have the skill to do so. But it's important to understand that there are many citizens who have been in a very real sense, traumatized by this event. How are we to discuss this damage. For me it's very real. and very confusing.
I agree, it's very real, and very hard to talk about. But I think it's a good start to say that people have been traumatized by xxx instead of xxx is barbaric.
> But the issue of FAITH is a bit of a land mine. I wonder why? Why should people of one faith attempt to impose their modes of belief upon others. Why a jihad? perhaps I don't understand the nature of that term. I take it to mean literally picking up a weapon and going out to conquer those who are not of the jihadists faith. And I can not understand that.
And it's also fine to say you don't understand something. :-)
Bob
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:26:07
In reply to Re: a religion instead of an individual, posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2005, at 0:24:23
I found it curious the doctor took no adminstrative interest in statements, republished below, that might seem to some to characterize the the godless or unbelieving as wretched, and that cast faithful evangelicals as advocates of "ignorant bushwah".
"If I choose to be a godless, unblieving wretch, then that is precisely why I love this country. Okay so the bible-tells-me-so folks are trying to shove all their ignorant bushwah down every one's throats."
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 4:05:09
In reply to Re: a religion instead of an individual, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:26:07
When I posted to this thread, it was redirected to another "political" forum. Why was this political thread not redirected from the outset?
Osama bin Laden's faith has never been of interest to American's except for it's political implications, and the second post, about the San Francisco radio station, directly discussed political matters.
And why did you redirect from the faith page my comment that disclosed faith-based economic directives that are not primarily political?
>>"It might be worth noting, if this is an occassion to better understand faith systems, that Islamic law as interpreted by many Muslims prohibits investment in weapons making. "
Are discussions of charitable guidance in the Christian faith likewise to be directed to the "political" board? What about the law of Moses -- the ten commandments -- is that "political"?
Or are you implying my comment was too insignificant in relation to faith matters to remain on the faith board? If so, your judgement is consistent with that of most Western media, which seems to consider Islamic faith-based economic rules insignificant in relation to discussion of secular economic matters, except perhaps for their political implications to the capitalist system.
Posted by 64bowtie on May 18, 2005, at 7:13:30
In reply to Re: a religion instead of an individual, posted by Dr. Bob on May 17, 2005, at 0:24:23
Dr-Bob,
You committed yourself to the premise that what is shared here pertains to folks who post here. Ergo, please point out the Babbler(s) I was targetting to offend. Again you dodged the issue and your answer falls short of your committed goal here. Are you intending to protect the entire world against anything I might mistakenly post? That would border on pantheism alright.
Neither you nor I know what religion that guy was aspousing! He was calling in on the radio talk show and never claimed to be of a particular religion! He was, however, a business man, selling listeners on the concept of selling their handicapped and terminally ill children to become suicide bombers for $25,000. So your pre-judgement was prejudice and prejudicial!
On another matter... You were clear in the past that those who block someone from responding to them, are intrinsically blocked from responding directly and tangently to the poster being blocked. Notice that partlycloudy, who I sadly am not aloud to apologize to for the Bru-Ha-Ha originated by someone else's babblemail, and gabbi-x-2, have posted tangently in this thread, using my words. I am offended by these thinly veiled responses as violations of your letter and intent. Please take any necessary measures to right these wrongs.
Rod
Posted by partlycloudy on May 18, 2005, at 8:24:49
In reply to » Dr-Bob » Again I ask, which Babbler?, posted by 64bowtie on May 18, 2005, at 7:13:30
I, personally, found your post offensive.
There. Clear as day. And no further discussion is necessary, as you have been PCB'd for the post already.
pc
Posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 8:31:55
In reply to » Dr-Bob » Again I ask, which Babbler?, posted by 64bowtie on May 18, 2005, at 7:13:30
Since it was posted on the faith board, it could be assumed that the post was about faith, or religion. Since I see all religions as being essentially one, what is said about a religion is said about religion in general to me. And the faith board rules, particularly among all the boards on Babble, state that posts on that board are to be supportive of faith.
You could ask Dr. Bob how he would have seen it had you posted it on Politics.
If you made it clear in your post that the person on the radio did not represent any religion, and acted on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the Almighty, then I think you'd be right. You'd be talking about the actions of one individual. But it would still probably belong on Politics, not Faith.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 13:16:09
In reply to Re: » 64bowtie, posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 8:31:55
> ... I see all religions as being essentially one, what is said about a religion is said about religion in general to me...
So religion in general prohibits eating pork? What about people who practice a particular religion and who are offended by the idea that theirs is just another religion, no different from all the rest? Do your personal beleifs supersede their beliefs?
> If you made it clear in your post that the person on the radio did not represent any religion, and acted on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the Almighty, then I think you'd be right.
Are you speaking as a deputy administrator or as an individual group member? I wonder because I notice you have previously speculated about what the doctor would have done in response to hypothetical alternatives you propose to members who have been criticized by the doctor.
Posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:33:52
In reply to Re:, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 13:16:09
On those rare occasions I post as a deputy, I say so.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:14:10
In reply to » Dr-Bob » Again I ask, which Babbler?, posted by 64bowtie on May 18, 2005, at 7:13:30
> You were clear in the past that those who block someone from responding to them, are intrinsically blocked from responding directly and tangently to the poster being blocked.
If A asks B not to post to them, then B isn't supposed to post to A. But A can still post to B. But then B can respond. Sorry if this is confusing...
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 20, 2005, at 18:25:35
In reply to Re: responding, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:14:10
> > You were clear in the past that those who block someone from responding to them, are intrinsically blocked from responding directly and tangently to the poster being blocked.
>
> If A asks B not to post to them, then B isn't supposed to post to A. But A can still post to B. But then B can respond. Sorry if this is confusing...
According to what I was told in the past, as long as the post is civil a "blocker, or "blockee"..is still entitled to post on the same thread as the person they are "not speaking to" : ) without any change in the Do not Post status. I wanted to clarify that my post was to Sabina, and I don't want any changes made. (Geez could that have been any more awkwardly worded?) Sorry Dr. Bob.
If I'm wrong about posting on the same thread could you let me know? Thanks.
Posted by Sabina on May 21, 2005, at 2:59:30
In reply to Re: responding » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 20, 2005, at 18:25:35
Yes, Gabbi, that was my understanding as well. Since you were speaking only to my response in the thread, and therefore not engaging anyone else, then you were not rescinding any "Do not post to me" request.
(Good to see you, too! I hope you're doing well.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:06:13
In reply to Re: responding » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 20, 2005, at 18:25:35
> According to what I was told in the past, as long as the post is civil a ... "blockee"..is still entitled to post [to someone else] on the same thread as the person they are "not speaking to" : )
Right, you really paid attention! :-)
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 21, 2005, at 15:42:50
In reply to Re: responding » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Sabina on May 21, 2005, at 2:59:30
> Yes, Gabbi, that was my understanding as well. Since you were speaking only to my response in the thread, and therefore not engaging anyone else, then you were not rescinding any "Do not post to me" request.
>And look how you summed that all up so succinctly. Envy abounds. I can't even blame topamax anymore :(
(Good to see you, too! I hope you're doing well.)I'm doing okay thanks. You are sorely missed.
>
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 21, 2005, at 15:46:22
In reply to Re: responding, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:06:13
> > According to what I was told in the past, as long as the post is civil a ... "blockee"..is still entitled to post [to someone else] on the same thread as the person they are "not speaking to" : )
>
> Right, you really paid attention! :-)
>
> Bob
And you managed to decipher my post!Ah, Dr. Bob you know how I hang on your every word. Besides, I'd like you to have to right as few of my heinous wrongdoings as possible. ;)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 22, 2005, at 9:22:11
In reply to Re: responding » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 21, 2005, at 15:46:22
This is the end of the 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.