![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 12:27:37
In reply to Re: How people can prescribe here » zazenduckie, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2006, at 12:00:16
> Then, IMO, those things would be the problem, not Babble. Not all Babblers do those things, and there's no evidence to suggest that those who do those things wouldn't do so without Babble.
Obviously they wouldn't be following treatment regimens prescribed by other Babbler posters without Babble.There's not any evidence about anything really at Babble but Bob can't suspend the rules of logic!
Posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 12:52:43
In reply to Generic use of badge of shame » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:20:01
> > As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.
> There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.Did the word "holocaust" exist prior to the 1930s?
> In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.In my ignorance, I would never have given the term a second thought. I did not recognize it as being associated with a particular group of people. I am still conflicted over its use. It is an effective term for which the use of the historic allusion might be appropriate.
- Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:09:36
In reply to Re: Generic use of badge of shame » zazenduckie, posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 12:52:43
> > > As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.
>
> > There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.
>
> Did the word "holocaust" exist prior to the 1930s?
HOLOCAUST
Definition from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, volume 2 from Macmillan Publishing
HOLOCAUST (Heb., sho'ah). The word "holocaust" is derived from the Greek holokauston, which originally meant a sacrifice totally burned by fire; it was used in the translation of I Samuel 7:9, "a burnt offering to God." In the course of time it came to be used to describe slaughter on a general or large scale, and, especially, various forms of the destruction of masses of human beings. In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. The mass extermination of Jews has become the archetype of GENOCIDE, and the terms sho'ah and "holocaust" have become linked to the attempt by the Nazi German state to destroy European Jewry during World War II.
The use of the Hebrew word sho'ah to denote the destruction of Jews in Europe during the war appeared for the first time in the booklet Sho'at Yehudei Polin (The Holocaust of the Jews of Poland), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews of Poland, in Jerusalem in 1940. The booklet contains reports and articles on the persecution of Jews in eastern Europe from the beginning of the war, written or verbally reported by eyewitnesses, among them several leaders of Polish Jewry. Up to the spring of 1942, however, the term was rarely used. The Hebrew term that was first used, spontaneously, was hurban (lit., "destruction"), similar in meaning to "catastrophe," with its historical Jewish meaning deriving from the destruction of the Temple. It was only when leaders of the Zionist movement and writers and thinkers in Palestine began to express themselves on the destruction of European Jewry that the Hebrew term sho'ah became widely used. It was still far from being in general use, even after the November 1942 declaration of the Jewish Agency that a sho'ah was taking place. One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world.
King James Bible: I Samuel 7:0 7:9 And Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered [it for] a burnt offering wholly unto the LORD: and Samuel cried unto the LORD for Israel; and the LORD heard him.
Definition from Yad VaShem web site:
> > In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.
>
> In my ignorance, I would never have given the term a second thought. I did not recognize it as being associated with a particular group of people. I am still conflicted over its use. It is an effective term for which the use of the historic allusion might be appropriate.Scott I wouldn't have either at one time. Lou has made me a lot more sensitive to things like that.
Frankly when I first saw the phrase used here I was uneasy. I thought of the Yellow Star of David badges the Jews were forced to wear in the Nazi era. And that apparently wasn't even the origin of the phrase although it seems to echo what went before. I think some words have so much history that even if some one is not totally conscious of that history there is a sort of second message they carry with them-if that makes any sense.>
> - Scott
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:31:27
In reply to How people can prescribe here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:02:43
I see a lot of what you are describing on the drug board myself.
There is a lot of really really really bad advice on that board - and the alternative board as well.
I also think there some people on that board that just flat out do not know what they are talking about at all.
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:37:31
In reply to Re: How people can prescribe here » zazenduckie, posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:31:27
I don't want anyone to be insulted by my previous statement that some people might not know what they are talking about on the babble board. If I could retract that I would, but suffice it to say, I would definately put myself in that category sometimes too.
Everyone brings something to the table.
Posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2006, at 18:42:16
In reply to Clarification » madeline, posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:37:31
I feel that the information given on babble meds board should be used by those reading it. To give copies to their own pdocs if it's something they think applies to them. But It's just being offered as a maybe ask your doc. Love Phillipa
Posted by muffled on December 3, 2006, at 18:49:59
In reply to Re: Generic use of badge of shame » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:09:36
My husbands family, during the second world war, had their guns taken from them, and when they went to town they had to wear a badge that said 'I am chinese'.
I can't even BEGIN to imagine how it felt to be a Japanese Canadian at that time.
Many, many bad things happen in this world.
Even as I speak a child is being raped, someone is being tortured, someone is watching thier child die, someone is dying-wondering whats to become of their children....etc, etc.
This is a fallen world.
FULL of evil.
Best not to get too fussed bout the 'little' stuff. I know its not little, but there is SO much bad. SO SO MUCH.
I dunno what I trying to say.
Muffled
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 19:00:51
In reply to Re: Clarification » madeline, posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2006, at 18:42:16
I totally agree, there is a lot of valuable information there.
But some of it is not.
It's like anything else on the internet - there is a lot of good and a lot of bad.
Caveat emptor.
Posted by henrietta on December 3, 2006, at 19:12:49
In reply to Re: Generic use of badge of shame » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:09:36
Thank you for that, Zazenduck.
hen
Posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2006, at 19:53:32
In reply to Re: Clarification » Phillipa, posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 19:00:51
Madeline of course it's up to the reader to aske their doc and not order online or borrow another person's med. But have you checked google lately? There are sites for everything bad ones. Love Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on December 3, 2006, at 20:09:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 7:25:29
> As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.
>
> However, with respect to Jews, an official "Badge of Shame" was imposed:
>
> "1215 - Fourth Lateran Council institutes the "Badge of Shame", a mark that all Jews are required to wear to distinguish themselves from Christians, and decrees that Jews shall not be seen in public on Good Friday. Fernando III, with the archbishop of Toledo, appeal to the Pope on behalf of the Iberian Jews. The pope, Honorius II, suspends the decision."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
>
> I doubt very many people would know this fact. Even so, the generic use of the term is well established, and I do not feel that GG showed any lack of sensitivity for using it.
>
>
> - ScottThanks Scott. I actually learned the phrase from Lou, and I tried to use it in a similar manner as he has in past posts and emails. It didn't occur to me that using the phrase I learned from him might be insensitive. Rather, I was trying to use language which I thought would be likely to be familiar and understandable.
Live and learn. I certainly didn't intend any offense.
gg
Posted by verne on December 3, 2006, at 21:34:01
In reply to Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2006, at 6:23:13
Lou,
I don't use the expressions, "holocaust" or "badge of shame" except in reference to what happened in Nazi Germany. But I grew up around adults (in the 1950's and 60's) who thought nothing of calling a messy room, a "holocaust".
I had to break old habits not to use the word in broader, and even trivial, contexts. It only hit me when I was an adult and father myself, and looked at my daughter's messy room, and thought...
I agree, that even though these expressions were around for centuries, I don't think they should be used in a general way anymore.
I'm still unlearning my upbringing.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2006, at 15:34:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on December 3, 2006, at 20:09:38
FRiends,
It is written here,[...I tried to use it in a similar manner as he has in past posts...].
There are some posts by me here that you can find with a search where I use the phrase in question. The issue that I have here now is the aspect of gg's post,[...in a similar manner...]
The manner that I used the phrase was about myself attempting to have posts here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings be sanctioned in the same manner as other posts here that contain accusations or put down those of other faiths. I requested that the administration of the deputies and Dr. Hsiung be willing to sanction those posts in question because it is my fear that if they are allowed to stand, that the phrase in question could be applied to me, not others. This is because another poster also wrote to the administration here to have posts that could arrouse antisemitic feeling sanctioned and wrote about her/his objections that there was no response from the administration ti him/her either.
The post IMO have the potential to have the potential to use me as a scapegoat and to have IMO the potential to create a hostile environment toward me here because I am a Jew. I would like for you to make your own determination if that by Dr. Hsiung adding a caution indicator to a post that has the potential to advocate a lethal combination of drugs if that is similar to my use of the phrase in the posts that gg cites. This involves the faith board and DR. Hsiung's statements in realation to my faith being IMO having the potential for some others to think that he is writing that the foundation of my faith puts down those of other faiths and I would be expelled if I was to post the foundation of my faith here in relation to what is explained on the opening page of the faith forum. There are posts that are allowed to stand here that I am requesting that they be sanctioned,(you can email me for these if you like).
I am uncertain if I can post the links here due to the new rules. If you would like to see those, and other links that are in relation to this issue here, you could email me if you like and make you own determination as to if the posts where I used the phrase in question is similar to the way that gg used the phrase.
My sincere thanks to ZZDuk for the contributions here and to the others that thanked her/him for posting such.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2006, at 16:13:47
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2006, at 15:34:58
Well, I am of the christian faith, and it seems to me onetime that Bob stopped a person from adding a link to a page that had the basic tenets of my faith. I think it was the one about how there is no other way to heaven except thru Me (meaning Jesus). For whatever reason Bob didn't like that. Which I must think is a personal thing on his part, because it is a tenet of a faith. Just a fact of what most Christians beleive in. SO WHAT? CHRISTIANS beleive it, noboddy else has to! I think that most people beleive that their faith is the best faith otherwise why is the world would they stick to it????? So why would I take offense to someone elses beleifs? I FIRMLY beleive that each goes to the banquet table of spirituality and takes what they want, and leave the rest. So some go with Judaism, some Buddism,some Islam, some Hinduism, Native spirituality, etc, etc, and various combinations and permutations of these faiths!Whatever speaks to THEM. In fact I MYSELF struggle with that particular phrase, and wonder if it has in fact been taken correctly from its original its context.....we really have so little to go on...
So I don't know. Faith is tricky. Each will beleive what they beleive, and if it don't include hurting others, well, I got no problem with it. We all just human. We all screwups. Its the human condition. NOBODY is perfect, no matter what color, age, sex, relogion, nationality, state of sanity, etc, etc, that they are.
We all just people.
I wish we could get along better :(
I wish there was so much less hurt :(
Sigh.
Most people just wanto feel safe, heard, loved.
Once again, I dunno what the hell i'm saying....or trying to say....:(
Muffled
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 9:28:14
In reply to ???????????????????????????????????????, posted by muffled on December 4, 2006, at 16:13:47
Friends,
It is written here,[...(DR. Hsiung) stopped a person from posting that [...there was XXX meaning XXX...].
This may not be entirerly an accurate description of that situation , for there is a post that I had dialog with DR. Hsiung that he allowed concerning this. If you would like to see these posts, you could email me if you like, for I am unsure as to if the new rule could allow me to post them.
The post in question is concerning DR. Hsiung's rule about not posting what could lead a person of another faith to feel put down. In the dialog in question, I would like for you, if you are going to email me for the posts, to make your own determination as to if there are two standards here for the posting of what DR. Hsiung writes as to what could lead one of another faith to feel put down as to if the foundation of Christiandom is favored over the foundation of Judaism.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by muffled on December 5, 2006, at 18:13:30
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 9:28:14
Posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 18:47:59
In reply to Rule bout linking to existing threads???? (nm), posted by muffled on December 5, 2006, at 18:13:30
You can link to other posts here. Folks do it all the time.
As always, you cannot quote uncivil material. And if you are asking for a civility determination about a post, you need to use the "notification" button instead of making a post about it on the admin board.
I have no idea why anyone would interpret it as a rule against posting any link at all, as it's rather specific, imo.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 19:32:42
In reply to There's no such rule » muffled, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 18:47:59
Friends,
It is written here by the deputy/member about a rule. Since it is about a rule here, could the deputy/member be posting about the rule as a deputy or a member or both?
I am also unsure about the new rule here because the deputy/member wrote,[...There is no such rule...you can link to other posts here...others do it all the time...I have no idea why anyone would..it's..spacific...]
But deputy/member Dinah writes that there has been a change when I rejoined the community. She writes that, as I see it, that I can not post content here that shows historical state-sponsored antisemitism.
Now if I was to post a previous post here that depicts state-sponsored antisemitism, then would that be allowed? I am unsure about that.
Dr. Hsiung also has posted toward this and I have requested clarification from him about the new rules.
There is much more to this...
Lou
PS Here is the link of Dinah writing about one change in the rule for posting that I am unsure as to if covers a previous post here. It seems to me that if I can not post content depicting state-sponsored antisemitism, that it could follow,IMO, that I could not post a previous post here that contained the same, does it not?
www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678294.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 19:36:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of member gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 19:32:42
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678294.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 19:48:17
In reply to There's no such rule » muffled, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 18:47:59
Friends,
In this post by gg, she writes to me about the new rule about posting. I am unsure as to what posts that are previous can or can not be posted here. This is because of this new rule concerning what constitutes a complaint.
So if I was to post a link to a previous post here, I am unsure as to how that could be interpreted by DR, Hsiung or a deputy as to if I could or could not post it. This concerns what a hypothetical member could interpret.
There is much more to this and if you would like to have the rest , we could email if you like.
Here is gg's post to me here about that if I post a previous post, it is possoble that someone could interpret that as me questioning the civility of the post, which Dr. Hsiung has written that it is uncivil here now to do so.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678254.html
Posted by muffled on December 5, 2006, at 19:59:53
In reply to There's no such rule » muffled, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 18:47:59
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 20:08:02
In reply to Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh my brain hurts...... (nm), posted by muffled on December 5, 2006, at 19:59:53
Friends,
There is dialog concerning my uncertianty as to the new rules made when I rejoined the community.
Here in this post, I bring up my uncertianty to have clarified by Dr. Hsiung about his new rules here. Later, we will see more about my concerns about Dr. Hsiung's new rules about URLs and such...
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/682403.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 20:21:57
In reply to There's no such rule » muffled, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 18:47:59
Friends,
The new rule about posting previous posts nd new links has in (A) in the previous post by me [...a speech by DR. Martin Luther King jr...]
I am uncertian if I could post his speech because it is about how the race of people that he was speaking for were oppressed by the state. Later, civil rights laws were passed because of his efforts to have racial equality addressed by the government.
Now Dinah has posted that she thinks that I can not post about historical state-sponsored antisemitism.So could I post what shows state-sponsored racism? And the post is one that I had previously posted. So if I posted it again, could it not be considered uncivl now and thearfore I could not post a link to that previos post?
Do you see why I am unsure as to what posts or links I can or can not post? Is Dr. King's speech uncivil because he was speaking about how the race that he was trying to have equality for was opressed? Then do you see my concern about that I can not post here about historical state-sponsored antisemitism?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 7:40:57
In reply to Lou's response to-There's no such rule, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 20:21:57
> Friends,
> The new rule about posting previous posts nd new links has in (A) in the previous post by me [...a speech by DR. Martin Luther King jr...]
> I am uncertian if I could post his speech because it is about how the race of people that he was speaking for were oppressed by the state. Later, civil rights laws were passed because of his efforts to have racial equality addressed by the government.
> Now Dinah has posted that she thinks that I can not post about historical state-sponsored antisemitism.So could I post what shows state-sponsored racism? And the post is one that I had previously posted. So if I posted it again, could it not be considered uncivl now and thearfore I could not post a link to that previos post?
> Do you see why I am unsure as to what posts or links I can or can not post? Is Dr. King's speech uncivil because he was speaking about how the race that he was trying to have equality for was opressed? Then do you see my concern about that I can not post here about historical state-sponsored antisemitism?
> LouFriends,
You have seen some of the aspects of why I am unsure as to what links that I can or can not post here due to new rules made here when I rejoined the community. There was also another rule made about posting a link to a blog that Dinah writes that one can not post the link to it here on the board. She writes that it could be done by emailing it. That is one reason why I provide my email address here so that I can email the links to the posts in question to those that are interested, for I am unsure as to which links that I can post or not post here because of this change in policy here about links to posts here.
This brings up as to why one can not post the link to a blog here and if you can not post a link to a blog, then that leads me to have uncertianty as to if one can post a link to other posts here that could be related in some way to the reason for that one can not post a link to a blog, whatever that reason may be. Can you see more now why I am unsure about what links can or can not be posted here?
Now if we look at (D}, {a post by a member that has been deemed civil here}, what if I was to post a link to a post here that was said to be acceptable, but the new polcy after I rejoined the community now states that that type of post is uncivil. Could I post a link to that post? This is why I am unsure as to what you can post about or what you can not post about and asked DR. Hsiung to clarify the ones that I have posted here.
Then there is the aspect of if the new rule policy is directed at me in particular and that others that post what I am told that I can not post will be allowed to do so, and I would not be allowed. I would like for anyne interested in that aspect to email me so that you could make your own determinationas to if there is the potential in your opinion to arrive at that conclusion or not.
I am also unsure if I can send those links to DR. Hsiung in advance for a determination from him without the condition from him of asking someone else first as to what they think about the post's acceptibility. If you are a person that knows for sure as to if I can do that or not, I would appreciate your email to me if you like, or a post here in this thread of your certainty as to why or why not I could send in advance a post for approval or not, without a condition that I ask someone else first. There is dialog here between me and Dr. Hsiung about this and does he not write that I would need to ask another by them emailing me because the post could be uncivil and thearfore it could not be done on the board? I am unsure at this time if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request to me, or if it is a requirement to me, that I have another review it first, before I send it to him for a determination as to if it is acceptable or not.
Then there is (H), {a historical document}.
I am unsure if I can post a link to a historical document because of the new policy about posting links. For instance, Dinah writes that I can not post about historical state-sponsored antisemitism because,(and I do not understand the reasoning put forth to justify the prohibition to me) I guess she is meaning that Jews could feel put down by reading that they were once subjected to state-sponsored antisemitism. If that is the case, does not the link show that they were once subjected to oppression, but in 1947 they were vindicated and received their own country in 1948? And does not the link in question show how state-sponsored antisemitism is uncivil and unsupportive and that those tactics used for state-sponsored hate could be brought out here for educational purposes as per the mission of the forum for support and education? Has not ZZDuk posted that she/he has been educated in some positive way here by my posts?
If I can not post a link to a historical document because it might, if this is according to this forum's policy, lead someone to feel put down, I ask you if I could post a link to the Bill of Rights? Could not those that do not want there to be a Bill of Rights feel put down because they may be fascists or neo-Nazis that do not want Jews and other minorities and some others to have equal rights? I ask, could I post a link to the historical document that expelled the Jews from all Spainish lands in 1492?. And could I post a link to the historical document that wrote prohibited black people from sitting in the front of the bus?
I ask, can you be sure what you can or can not post a link to here? If you say that you can, please post what the criteria is that you use to be sure that a link to a post can be posted here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 8:42:37
In reply to Lou's response to-There's no such rule, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 7:40:57
Dr. Bob asks us not to post links to material which would be considered uncivil if posted directly to the board. In other words, we can't post a link to uncivil material. It's that simple. One could ask oneself, "Is this material I wish to link to uncivil?" If yes, you risk administrative action if you post it. If no, you can probably post it with confidence.
If you're not sure if it's yes or no, you can always send it to a civility buddy to preview for you.
And just to address pre-emptively what I'm sure would follow...you can also email it to Dr. Bob to preview for you. However, if one chooses this option, one should be prepared to wait a very long time for a response by history. Emailing a civility buddy or a deputy will likely result in a much more timely response due to greater availability.
gg
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.