![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:27:29
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2006, at 19:17:25
<i>Well, I prefer that Dr. Bob keep the civility rules on *all* the boards. Civil is civil, and I appreciate him for that.</i>
Dont misunderstand me, i'm not against DR Bobs civility rules per se, as I think on the whole they work very well (although at time I think he's a bit strict, but thats just my personal opinion), its just that such strictness regarding civility and discussions on religion or politics tend not to mix tooo well.
I'm very much in favour of not letting people become uncivil toward each other in a discussion, but someone got banned for saying Bush was incompetent......thats not uncivil to anyone (bar GB) and I think he's big enough and ugly enough to come and stand up for himself should he choose to do so ;-)
I think you can see where I am coming from anyway.
I've just come up with an interesting notion.......DR Bob as house representative controlling the bunch of heathens that loosely call themselves politicians. He'd be tearing his hair out within a week ;-))
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:31:22
In reply to 1st amendment » teejay, posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:16:29
Well as a Briton rather than an american, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on this one, but I'd kind of assumed that the constitution was there as a guidline or basis for all other decisions to based broadly upon?
Tricky one though as we dont have a constitution as such.
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:34:55
In reply to Re: Jakeman » teejay, posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:55
<i>Your first amendment rights are protected in a "public forum" such as a park or sidewalk. On private property (or website in this case), free speech activities depend on the consent of the owner. You don't automatically have a right to say what you want, whenever you want. Countless court cases have shown this to be the case. </i>
......and this isnt a public forum?
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:41:31
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by gardenergirl on February 3, 2006, at 19:26:06
<i>This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.</i>
No its not, but i'm sure its the most moderated ;-)))
I know you feel like i'm being pedantic, but I do feel that to express political opinion properly, you cant shackle those who choose to voice their opinions.
For example, if I disagreed with your opinions on george bush's stance on Iran for example, provided I attacked GB's standpoint rather than your stance then I wouldnt be being uncivil to you whilst still allowing me to fully express my point of view. The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! (i'm trying to watch my own wording here! LOL)
TJ
Posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:48:20
In reply to Re: Jakeman, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:34:55
> ......and this isnt a public forum?
No it is not. It is a privately owned website where the owner allows people to participate in an online forum. It is still privately held. If the federal or state government owned and operated this site, then they could not inhibit a person's right to free speech. Think of coming here as if you were coming into Dr. Bob's home. It is his private property where his rules apply (as long as they don't break laws). He can choose who can stay and who must go. And he can decide what he will allow as conversation in his house. He has graciously made this forum available to anyone to read and if you sign up he allows you to post. It is still his forum. It is not public in the sense of a "public forum" or "public place". There is a huge difference.
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 20:01:16
In reply to Re: Jakeman » teejay, posted by thuso on February 3, 2006, at 19:48:20
<i>No it is not. It is a privately owned website where the owner allows people to participate in an online forum. It is still privately held. If the federal or state government owned and operated this site, then they could not inhibit a person's right to free speech. Think of coming here as if you were coming into Dr. Bob's home. It is his private property where his rules apply (as long as they don't break laws). He can choose who can stay and who must go. And he can decide what he will allow as conversation in his house. He has graciously made this forum available to anyone to read and if you sign up he allows you to post. It is still his forum. It is not public in the sense of a "public forum" or "public place". There is a huge difference. </i>
LEgally speaking, I think you are on very shakey ground there, but that really isnt the issue. Legally binding or not, to live by a constitution and then arbitrarilly take it or leave it as you so wish isnt really morally the right thing to do.
Anyway, I've spent far too much time on the admin board as it is (I generally find it a very negative place to hang out) so will wish you the very best of health, and a good nites sleep :-)
Regards
TJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 3:55:43
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this?, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:27:29
> I think he's ... ugly enough
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> I've just come up with an interesting notion.......DR Bob as house representative controlling the bunch of heathens that loosely call themselves politicians. He'd be tearing his hair out within a week ;-))
Didn't someone say before that I'm already losing my hair? :-)
Bob
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this?, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:41:31
> <i>This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.</i>
>
> No its not, but i'm sure its the most moderated ;-)))
>
> I know you feel like i'm being pedantic, but I do feel that to express political opinion properly, you cant shackle those who choose to voice their opinions.
>
> For example, if I disagreed with your opinions on george bush's stance on Iran for example, provided I attacked GB's standpoint rather than your stance then I wouldnt be being uncivil to you whilst still allowing me to fully express my point of view. The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! (I'm trying to watch my own wording here! LOL)
>
> TJLOL I think you're making some good points as well as doing a good job of watching your wording. I sure hope DrBob reads them.
"The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! "
As far as I can make out, I think they are only shackled if they do not support bbbb's policies?
Can anyone see anything different here?
That is, your allowed to fully express your opinions and views provided you are in support of bbbb's policies or even bbbb himself?It seems to me that the fact that the support may upset or discomfort the others that do not so strongly support bbbb's views is not taken into account. They have to let the supporters only air their views, so they must think that everyone agrees with them?, Any attempt at openly and plainly expressing an opposing view, no matter how friendly it was said, would not be supportive and so, under what seems to be at least the recent interpretation and application of the civility guidelines, it's not civil???
At least that's the point I've been attempting to ask? Is civil= supportive and complimenting only?
Can you not state your opinion ..just openly and plainly if it is not in support of BBBB or BBBB policies?
Personally I don't feel comfortable reading the style of writing that the application of these civil rules is creating.I guess I like friendly and open. You could add any of relaxed, funny, thought provoking on top of the open and friendly :-) Maybe it's me that just doesn't fit in here.
I guess I've always appreciated it, if anyone has an opposing view of anything, if they take the trouble to let me know how they feel.
I appreciate and value their effort and the time put in in doing so, especially if they can help me see their view of things as well. A real open 2 -way conversation is the best:-) I guess I really don't like it if everyone just agrees out of civility? Maybe they don't think I'm worth the effort to share their thoughts/experiences/wisdom with?
Whst if I (or others) may have been comparatively discomforted by a supportive statement of bbbb or bbbb's policies, as those who support bbbb are by the statements that openly voice non support of bbbb or his policies?
Do I then voice my discomfort of their complaint that they are discomforted? or voice my discomfort at their support? I ( & I suspect maybe others)arguably feel "uncomfortable" just as strongly .. although I do not see how anyone including myself can judge how anyone else feels.What if bbbb= Osama bin Laden or Saddam Or Hitler or.. does the same apply?.. supportive statements only?
Well I know I'm not doing a great job here of witting succinctly :-)
BTW I didn't think Jakeman did anything wrong either.Jan (who deosn't fit in here)
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:44:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 3:55:43
> > I think he's ... ugly enough
>
> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
>
Dr Bob.. I think that was meant as a compliment ?
I've seen TJ refer to himself as ugly. LOL
Posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 5:52:46
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
As far as I can make out, I think they are only shackled if they do not support bbbb's policies?
Can anyone see anything different here?
That is, your allowed to fully express your opinions and views provided you are in support of bbbb's policies or even bbbb himself?>>actually I do not think this is true. alexandra k was blocked despite being virtually the only poster who defended larry's block, and the block occurred in the course of the rather wide-ranging discussion of issues related to said block.
I personally think that if Dinah's precis of the purposes of the politics board is correct, then it might as well be assimilated to Social or Writing. Politics is a nasty business, and people's lives hinge on politicians' decisions. It's no use pretending that politics can be made vague and smiley enough to qualify as 'civil' as civility is defined here.
I think it is a brave experiment of Dr. B to have a Politics board here. But as a matter of fact, smiley discussions that pass as civil are in my opinion actively pernicious because they obscure the true nature of politics.
-z
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 6:43:29
In reply to Re: please be civil » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 3:55:43
> > I think he's ... ugly enough
>
> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
>Its an English expression Dr Bob and is used as playful banter and not meant in the literal sense.....the terms big enough and ugly enough are used together to suggest he can handle a bit of "rough and tumble".
No offence intended to any ladies here who think george dubya is errrr handsome ;-)
TJ
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 6:46:08
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:44:41
>> I've seen TJ refer to himself as ugly. LOL
She's lying I tell ya, lying!!!!! :-))))))
TJ
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2006, at 11:25:26
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » tealady, posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 5:52:46
I don't understand that at all.
It seems to me that issues can be discussed if there is a desire to discuss issues, and without being uncivil. I could do so myself with a like minded individual who differs with me on any given policy if I felt moved to do so.
It's not that I don't understand anger at political issues. I've been known to mutter a few things towards the administration, Congress, and most directly our recovery czar that wouldn't pass muster on Babble. But I can also choose to discuss the issues only, and why New Orleans deserves help, without mentioning any private thoughts that may be quite uncivil. One of our local radio show hosts manages to interview people with civility despite his strong opinions on their actions and viewpoints.
I don't quite understand why that wouldn't be so in general. ???
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 12:54:35
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » teejay, posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
> Is civil= supportive and complimenting only?
>
> Can you not state your opinion ..just openly and plainly if it is not in support of BBBB or BBBB policies?
>
> A real open 2 -way conversation is the best:-) I guess I really don't like it if everyone just agrees out of civility?Sorry, maybe I need to review my terminology. I've been using "supportive" to refer to:
> Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
In other words, respectful and sensitive, but not necessarily in agreement. Supportive of the other person, as opposed to their views. Maybe "respectful" would be less ambiguous?
As an exercise, is there some policy that someone here disagrees with, but feels unable to express their opinion on?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 12:54:40
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 6:43:29
> > > I think he's ... ugly enough
> >
> > Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
>
> Its an English expression Dr Bob and is used as playful banter and not meant in the literal sense.....the terms big enough and ugly enough are used together to suggest he can handle a bit of "rough and tumble".Sorry, I wasn't familiar with that expression. I guess that's "ugly" in the sense of:
> 4 b : SURLY, QUARRELSOME <an ugly disposition> <the crowd got ugly>
as opposed to:
> 2 a : offensive to the sight : HIDEOUS
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ugly
OTOH, I'm not sure how respectful and sensitive it would be to refer to him as surly or quarrelsome, either. Anyway, there would've been less room for misunderstanding if you'd just said:
> I think he can handle "rough and tumble" well enough to come and stand up for himself should he choose to do so ;-)
OTOH, he may be, but posters who support him may not be.
BTW, have you seen:
E-mails and egos
An inability to step outside of one's own head may be behind e-mail miscommunication, according to recent research.
By Lea Winerman
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.htmlBob
Posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 13:11:27
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » zeugma, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2006, at 11:25:26
> I don't understand that at all.
I don't blame you. I am in a state of utter and complete exhaustion now, and was only marginally less so when I wrote the original post.
On the train home for work today (where I realized I was incoherent, and wisely delegated all tasks to others for the larger good), I remembered that I had advocated the shutting down of Politics. Please cancel that vote.
-z
>
> It seems to me that issues can be discussed if there is a desire to discuss issues, and without being uncivil. I could do so myself with a like minded individual who differs with me on any given policy if I felt moved to do so.
>
> It's not that I don't understand anger at political issues. I've been known to mutter a few things towards the administration, Congress, and most directly our recovery czar that wouldn't pass muster on Babble. But I can also choose to discuss the issues only, and why New Orleans deserves help, without mentioning any private thoughts that may be quite uncivil. One of our local radio show hosts manages to interview people with civility despite his strong opinions on their actions and viewpoints.
>
> I don't quite understand why that wouldn't be so in general. ???
Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 14:10:12
In reply to Re: One more thing.... » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 17:36:48
I'll be happy to engage civilly - but be forewarned I am *not* a Bush supporter myself.
I do however have some strong ideas about energy policies.
See 'ya on politics.
Posted by thuso on February 4, 2006, at 14:40:33
In reply to Re: big enough and ugly enough, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 12:54:40
> > Its an English expression Dr Bob and is used as playful banter and not meant in the literal sense.....the terms big enough and ugly enough are used together to suggest he can handle a bit of "rough and tumble".
>
> Sorry, I wasn't familiar with that expression. I guess that's "ugly" in the sense of:
>
> > 4 b : SURLY, QUARRELSOME <an ugly disposition> <the crowd got ugly>
>
> as opposed to:
>
> > 2 a : offensive to the sight : HIDEOUS
>
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/uglyWhat might be a good thing for all of us to start doing is if we use an expression that is not universal, we should state what it means. There are too many words and phrases that in one country (or even part of a country) mean one thing and somewhere else it is taken in a completely different way. We have that problem even within different parts of the US.
FYI...I also thought when "ugly" was used, it mean "not good looking". I'm glad it was cleared up and I learned a new phrase. I just have to be careful where I use it out here. hahaha! :-)
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 17:21:29
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this? » Dinah, posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 13:11:27
>> I remembered that I had advocated the shutting down of Politics. Please cancel that vote.
Wow, with U-turns like that, you'd make one hell of a politician ;-)))))TJ
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 17:26:37
In reply to Re: big enough and ugly enough, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 12:54:40
Well Dr Bob, I'm not sure it does refer to ugly in that way......I think its actually meant as "not very good looking" but as a demonstration that the person is big enough to take a little knock in a friendly rough and tumble kind of way.
You would quite often use the term in the persons presence and the fact they chuckled at your remark rather than thumped you one was demonstation enough that the person was indeed big enough to handle a bit of banter.
TJ
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 4, 2006, at 18:13:54
In reply to We should explain an expression when we use it...., posted by thuso on February 4, 2006, at 14:40:33
Thing is, when a phrase is a common one you use often, you simply don't realise that other don't use it.
I use the phrase "big enough and ugly enough" all the time.. normally in a "he's big enough and ugly enough to look after himself" type of way.. And simply wouldn't have realised that others didn't know.
Nikki
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 19:44:36
In reply to Re: We should explain an expression when we use it.... » thuso, posted by NikkiT2 on February 4, 2006, at 18:13:54
exactly Nikki.
The same could be said for US meanings of words and phrases too. I guess we pick up a bit from TV and US films, but in my 5 years or more on the net, I'm always having to stop and think and watch others reactions for some of the phrases.
That's one reason I think some of the blocks have not been fair.
One term that springs to mind from a different forum is "mavens".. a very derogatory term I always thought and even after years I'm still not comfortable with, and yet It's one the US posters collectively chose as a term to collectively call those they thought were knowledgeable, experienced and helpful on the board.
But I come across similar differences in meaning more often than not.
I've been surprised at the extent of the differences.
Jan
Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 21:26:57
In reply to Re: big enough and ugly enough, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 12:54:40
> > > > I think he's ... ugly enough
> > >
> > > Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
> >
> > Its an English expression Dr Bob and is used as playful banter and not meant in the literal sense.....the terms big enough and ugly enough are used together to suggest he can handle a bit of "rough and tumble".
>
> Sorry, I wasn't familiar with that expression. I guess that's "ugly" in the sense of:
>
> > 4 b : SURLY, QUARRELSOME <an ugly disposition> <the crowd got ugly>
>
> as opposed to:
>
> > 2 a : offensive to the sight : HIDEOUS
>
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ugly
>
> OTOH, I'm not sure how respectful and sensitive it would be to refer to him as surly or quarrelsome, either. Anyway, there would've been less room for misunderstanding if you'd just said:
>
> > I think he can handle "rough and tumble" well enough to come and stand up for himself should he choose to do so ;-)
>
> OTOH, he may be, but posters who support him may not be.
>
> BTW, have you seen:
>
> E-mails and egos
> An inability to step outside of one's own head may be behind e-mail miscommunication, according to recent research.
> By Lea Winerman
> http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.html
>
> Bob
>its actually meant as "not very good looking" but as a demonstration that the person is big enough to take a little knock in a friendly rough and tumble kind of way.----------------
Dr Bob, "surly and quarrelsome" is still not the right way to look at the expression either.
I guess it's unlikely you are going to get the correct meaning from a US dictionary.I'll try to explain my understanding of the phrase..
Think back to the stereotypes of the upper class of English society in the period that historical romance novels are set.. ones like "Pride and Prejudice".
Now I'll try grouping a few phrases together for the supposed stereotypes
think of what might arguably be aimed for differing stereotypes(I'm not saying females or males fit or ever did fit these stereotypes.. it's only a way of trying to explain the phrase)1. female.... pretty, small, delicate, needing a chaperone, needing someone to take care of them, sheltered, not educated in the ways of the world
2. male not pretty in a feminine way, broad shouldered, educated in the ways of the world, well travelled, maybe visited various colonies..at least done a tour of Europe, seen many sides of life, been about, opposite of sheltered, perhaps been in a war but probably some duty somewhere as an officer, able to stand up for himself and take care of others, tough and experienced with a strength
3. The differing kind of male.. a pansy, a dandy, a fop, main aim seemed to be "not ugly" .. spent time preening himself etc.
Now I KNOW none of these stereotypes hold.. but stereotype 2. is the closest I can think of to "big and ugly"
.. maybe its the known strength and toughness thru experience .. as with all phrases nothing exactly fits, not exactlyrelated to size or looks
Well that's my understanding of it.It's a phrase usually applied to males ...not to females :-)
Jan
Posted by James K on February 5, 2006, at 1:42:32
In reply to Re: big enough and ugly enough, posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 21:26:57
Posted by teejay on February 5, 2006, at 7:20:58
In reply to I'm a B*d*ss M*ther F*cker just btwn you and me (nm), posted by James K on February 5, 2006, at 1:42:32
.
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.