![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 87 to 111 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on July 30, 2005, at 11:30:23
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » crushedout, posted by Carolina on July 30, 2005, at 4:00:34
I don't know about the current 'terrorists.'
But throughout history what one side would call terrorist the other side would call freedom fighter.
Now this isn't to say that I condone the tactics. I am personally horrified by them.
But the English were horrified by the colonist's tactics.
And the Americans were horrified by North Vietnam's tactics.
Different cultures value different lives differently. When I was in China the morning television show would show that day's about to be executed prisoners. They would all be put out on a balcony for everyone to see. Those sad eyes always got to me.
Posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 11:47:47
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » Carolina, posted by AuntieMel on July 30, 2005, at 11:30:23
> I don't know about the current 'terrorists.'
>
> But throughout history what one side would call terrorist the other side would call freedom fighter.
>What I was saying was that calling saying you shouldn't call a terrorist a bad name was a little contradictory. Of course the other side is going to call them something else, it's like Draft dodger/conscientious objector. And the fact that other cultures and other generations have felt differently about violence and life is no secret but that's isn't really this issue is it?
She wasn't putting down anyone, she was clearly horrified, and I'm completely galled that there even has to be a discussion as to whether it was *okay* to voice her horror, especially when she did it as well as she did. We can distance ourselves by intellectualizing all we want, it doesn't change that what she saw was horrifying to her, and for Chr*st sake she spoke of it!How about next time someone sees a child being tortured and writes about how horrifying it is, we all just talk about how different people value children differently, we havn't always valued them and torture ain't all bad...and would she please be civil cause there may be some child abusers out there who will have their feelings hurt.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 30, 2005, at 13:17:25
In reply to Re: I REQUEST A DO NOT POST FOR DR. BOB » barosky, posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:07:07
>
> Have you been posting here long?
> JenStarI had the same question. There's something faintly familiar to me, but there are not many posts under the screen name Barosky as of yet, so I don't know why that familiarity is there.
Oh, and I think you are right about there not being the opportunity to DNP Dr. Bob. Imagine the consequences! Yikes!
;)
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2005, at 14:01:14
In reply to I REQUEST A DO NOT POST FOR DR. BOB, posted by barosky on July 29, 2005, at 19:57:30
> Crazy T was saying that no matter what your cause that sort of violence is wrong.
>
> gabbii> that clearly means that regardless of what your reasons are, she doesn't think you should drag or behead people.
>
> crushedoutMaybe I should've asked her to rephrase that instead. I think any of these would've been OK:
> that sort of violence is wrong
> I don't think you should drag or behead people
> That's just f*cking WRONG.--
> crazy t does a LOT of good for MANY babblers and she can be an excellent support system.
>
> CarolinaI agree, and hope to see her back soon!
--
> Dr. Bob don't respond to any of my posts, I am enforcing a DNP or whatever that thing is for you.
>
> baroskySorry, I think I need to be an exception...
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 14:22:02
In reply to Re: rephrase, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2005, at 14:01:14
Just one more thing Dr. Bob, I don't expect you to rehash it anymore.
I realize it was the "I don't care" that you took issue with. But that was her way of saying that no matter who did this kind of thing, it was unnacceptable. In that respect she was making sure that people knew she wasn't criticizing the particular group represented by the e-mail, or any group, she wasn't saying she didn't care *about* them, she wasn't saying that Americans would never do this, or that any other country, race or religion is above those grueome tactics during war. She was saying the *behaviour* was wrong, that actually exemplified civility, and it's sad that that's what got her the p.b.c.
And I really wish we had italics on this board.
I feel silly using the asterisks all the time :(
Posted by barosky on July 30, 2005, at 15:24:21
In reply to Re: rephrase, posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2005, at 14:01:14
Please ban yourself, or show me where it is indicated that you are excluded from DNP requests, thanks.
Posted by Carolina on July 31, 2005, at 2:24:36
In reply to Dr. Bob, you violated my DNP request, posted by barosky on July 30, 2005, at 15:24:21
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 16:21:34
In reply to Dr. Bob, you violated my DNP request, posted by barosky on July 30, 2005, at 15:24:21
> Please ban yourself, or show me where it is indicated that you are excluded from DNP requests, thanks.
LOL! I thought of that a while back...
The only worry was that I might not get warnings or notifications of blockings anymore.
And so... One could get blocked without even knowing what one had done:-(
Posted by AuntieMel on August 1, 2005, at 8:24:48
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 30, 2005, at 11:47:47
I agree with it being horrifying. There is no argument there. I also agree that a PBC was harsh under the circumstances.
She just asked if there was a p.c. name for them. So I was responding to that.
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
In reply to Re: DNP above » JenStar, posted by gardenergirl on July 30, 2005, at 13:17:25
>
> >
> > Have you been posting here long?
> > JenStar
>
> I had the same question. There's something faintly familiar to me, but there are not many posts under the screen name Barosky as of yet, so I don't know why that familiarity is there.
>
> Oh, and I think you are right about there not being the opportunity to DNP Dr. Bob. Imagine the consequences! Yikes!
>
> ;)
>
>
> gg
>---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:33:39
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
> >
> > >
> > > Have you been posting here long?
> > > JenStar
> >
> > I had the same question. There's something faintly familiar to me, but there are not many posts under the screen name Barosky as of yet, so I don't know why that familiarity is there.
> >
> > Oh, and I think you are right about there not being the opportunity to DNP Dr. Bob. Imagine the consequences! Yikes!
> >
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > gg
> >
>
> ---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???*Wrong*
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:40:30
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » gabbii, posted by AuntieMel on August 1, 2005, at 8:24:48
> I agree with it being horrifying. There is no argument there. I also agree that a PBC was harsh under the circumstances.
>
> She just asked if there was a p.c. name for them. So I was responding to that.Oh, that had been part of my post originally so I wasn't sure, I didn't really understand why the mention of war tactics by different groups though, as she (T) hadn't made any generalizations that way, I guess it was just free association. Sorry Auntie Mel
The fact that it was directed to Caroline should have clued me in.
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 9:53:45
In reply to Re: good point gabs. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:40:30
what was directed at me? i must have missed something??? havn't slept in going on 4 days so i prob. am just braindead rt. now. anyone want to fill me in??? Pls?
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
In reply to Re: DNP above » Carolina, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 9:33:39
The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
> > ---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:35:14
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 13:00:47
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
ok...still lost but have better idea now that i have read everything. i'll just leave this alone-don't wanna step on any toes! take care-carolina
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 13:55:37
In reply to RE:ABOVE » gabbii, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 13:00:47
> ok...still lost but have better idea now that i have read everything. i'll just leave this alone-don't wanna step on any toes! take care-carolina
Well if you didn't mean anything by the capitalized "SO" then I apologize for my assumption.
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 14:32:34
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
>---thats odd gg b/c i also though something seemed SO familiar but cant place it just yet???
Are you refering to the previous poster of 'so' who was blocked?
Lots of people have said things about 'so' using his name in such a way like you have with hightlighting SO.
Gabbii definately thought you was refering to the poster 'so' When I read your post it seemed that way to me too...
I wonder if barosky will comment....
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 11:31:37
>The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
Hi Gabbii,
Just out of curosity, how would you know if its incorrect?
I do remember 'so' saying that when he returns he something along the lines of, he will not make himself known i.e we will not recognise that 'he/she' has even returned...
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
> >The inference from your post was pretty obvious, but it's incorrect, that's all I was saying.
>
> Hi Gabbii,
>
> Just out of curosity, how would you know if its incorrect?
>
Hi Nick!I can't blame you for asking, ( I suppose I asked for it : ) I don't really want to add any more fuel to the situation though.
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:05:42
In reply to Re: DNP above » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
Hi Gabbii!
I didn't realise there was a situation occuring, but I respect your wishes.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:21:00
In reply to Re: DNP above » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 15:40:25
Ahhhh....through reading other posts I now realise there was something escalating..
Posted by gabbii on August 1, 2005, at 16:27:57
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 16:21:00
Posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 22:54:31
In reply to Re: DNP above » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 1, 2005, at 15:05:34
Posted by barosky on August 2, 2005, at 3:20:43
In reply to Re: DNP above, posted by Carolina on August 1, 2005, at 8:29:04
I don't think I phrase my posts in the same way SO does do you? Or is it just the way I act, I think *SO* is quite eccentric and interesting at the same time, you can check IP'S, if you want, I am not *SO* Personally I thought that LOU guy was SO, I mean come on "I request for SO's reinstatement"
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.