![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 127 to 151 of 154. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 9:08:44
In reply to Simple criteria regarding posting any URL, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 8:42:37
Friends,
It is written here,[...we can't post a link to >uncivil material<...It's that |simple|...].
The question now becomes, {..what is uncivil material?...}. Since that definition now includes posting about state-sponsored antisemitism,and posting a link to a blog, then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
That is why I have asked DR. Hsiung to have dialog with me to determine if ,let's say, posting a speech from DR. Martin Luther King jr that was about how the race of people were subjected to state-sponsored racism, could be acceptible or not to be posted.For I am still at this time unsure as to if I can post his speech or not here due to the new policy here since I rejoined the community.
Let me clarify here...I am also unsure at this time if I can send the post to DR. Hsiung ahead for a determination or not {without the added request or reqirement to me to send it to someone else first}.
If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here. For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it. There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
I would like to abide by the rules here as I understand them like others have to abide by the rules here and want to work constructivly to have clarification about the new policy since I rejoined the forum. What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on December 6, 2006, at 9:18:51
In reply to Simple criteria regarding posting any URL, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 8:42:37
> Dr. Bob asks us not to post links to material which would be considered uncivil if posted directly to the board.
When answering a post, there is a link to the post being answered.If a post for which the poster was blocked for MANY weeks was answered by another. Her answer included the link to the "uncivil" post. Was the "simple" rule not broken? Would she join the original poster in being blocked for MANY weeks?
I have not seen that happen.
>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
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 9:33:57
In reply to Simple criteria regarding posting any URL, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 8:42:37
Friends,
Itis written her by the deputy/member about {simple criteria} for determining posts civility via a link.
The deputy/member signs as a {member}, not deputy, so I am still unsure about all of this because as a {member}, what she has posted may not be administrative policy.
But let us look at another aspect of her post here, She writes,[...if you are not sure, you can aleways send it to another member who you are a buddy with...].
I ask:
A. How can this buddy be a >determining< factor as to if Dr. Hsiung says that the link is civil or not?
B. If you take the position that it can, what then could happen if you post it on the basis that the buddy says that it is civil and then DR. Hsiung says that it is uncivil?
C. By what authority does another member determine what is civil or not here without Dr. Hsiung making the determination?
Then the deputy/member writes,[...you can email it to Dr. Hsiung...but wait a long time...deputy..buddy more timely results...].
I ask;
E. How can I email it to DR. Hsiung without sending it to someone else first {if there is a request or requirement to me from Dr. Hsiung for me to send it to someone else first?
F.What if I would like to email it to Dr. Hsiung and allow him to make his own timeline as to when he would reply? He has posted a procedure for that, has he not? such as,(2 days)(then remind again),then (post on the admin board that you have a request)
G. What could there be to allow me to post with certainty if another member says it is OK? Is it not only their opinion? And would it not have to be sent via email?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 9:34:36
In reply to Lou's response to-Simple criteria, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 9:08:44
>Since that definition now includes ... posting a link to a blog
There's no rule or interpretation of a rule that says one cannot post a link to a blog. Again, the issue is if the material in the blog is civil or not. The blog that Dinah posted about specifically is one that contains material that would be deemed uncivil if posted on the board.
> then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
I suppose they could, but it seems simpler to me to determine whether the material is civil or not versus trying to apply every example of every decision to one question.
> If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here.
I'll take you up on this. Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not. And if you simply must have his ruling versus trusting anyone else, I'm certain you can send it to him. I would not expect a reply in the timeframe you seem to prefer, however. My guess is, Dr. Bob asked you to send it to someone else first because he knows he really does not have the time to get to it soon. Also, he supports the use of civility buddies for just this kind of thing.
What am I using to base this statement on? Confidence in my common sense.
> For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it.
I'm certain it is not a "requirement". I'm certain that if you were to send it to him for review, you would not get in any kind of trouble for sending it or face any administrative action, unless there is some agreement in place between you and Dr. Bob of which I am unaware. I took his post asking you to send it to someone else first as his preference and as advice, not as some new requirement just for you.
> There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
Stop signs do not also say, "Go" and yet we go anyway when appropriate. I doubt you'll ever see any kind of post "rescinding" his request to you to send it to someone else first.
Is there some reason you don't wish to send it to anyone else first? You've had all this time, afterall.
> What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
There would not be any harm to anyone else if someone clarified this to your satisfaction. I doubt that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire.
Hope this helps. I've answered to the best of my ability based on my experience both as a poster and as a deputy. Please consider this response as a response from a deputy trying to help someone understand the rules.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 9:54:40
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-Simple criteria » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 9:34:36
> >Since that definition now includes ... posting a link to a blog
>
> There's no rule or interpretation of a rule that says one cannot post a link to a blog. Again, the issue is if the material in the blog is civil or not. The blog that Dinah posted about specifically is one that contains material that would be deemed uncivil if posted on the board.
>
> > then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
>
> I suppose they could, but it seems simpler to me to determine whether the material is civil or not versus trying to apply every example of every decision to one question.
>
> > If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here.
>
> I'll take you up on this. Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not. And if you simply must have his ruling versus trusting anyone else, I'm certain you can send it to him. I would not expect a reply in the timeframe you seem to prefer, however. My guess is, Dr. Bob asked you to send it to someone else first because he knows he really does not have the time to get to it soon. Also, he supports the use of civility buddies for just this kind of thing.
>
> What am I using to base this statement on? Confidence in my common sense.
>
> > For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it.
>
> I'm certain it is not a "requirement". I'm certain that if you were to send it to him for review, you would not get in any kind of trouble for sending it or face any administrative action, unless there is some agreement in place between you and Dr. Bob of which I am unaware. I took his post asking you to send it to someone else first as his preference and as advice, not as some new requirement just for you.
>
> > There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
>
> Stop signs do not also say, "Go" and yet we go anyway when appropriate. I doubt you'll ever see any kind of post "rescinding" his request to you to send it to someone else first.
>
> Is there some reason you don't wish to send it to anyone else first? You've had all this time, afterall.
>
> > What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
>
> There would not be any harm to anyone else if someone clarified this to your satisfaction. I doubt that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire.
>
> Hope this helps. I've answered to the best of my ability based on my experience both as a poster and as a deputy. Please consider this response as a response from a deputy trying to help someone understand the rules.
>
> ggFriends,
In the post above by deputy/member gardenergirl, she writes,[...you can send it to (Dr. Hsiung)..he has no way of knowing if you sent it to someone else beforehand or not...].
I ask,
A. Could not Dr. Hsiung ask me after I send it to him as to if and what person I sent the post to before I sent it to him?
B. If he did, in your opinion, is deputy/member gg's statement to me here, in >any< way whatsoever, a suggestion to me to deceive Dr.Hsiung? If you take the position that it is not, could you post in this thread why you say that it is not?
Then the deputy/member writes,[..I am certain you can send it to him...] I ask,
C. By what authority is seen from the deputy/member to make that >certain<?
Then the deputy/ member writes,[...my guess is...
D I ask, why guess?
Lou
Posted by Honore on December 6, 2006, at 10:00:29
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-Simple criteria » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 9:34:36
If you want to post a link, it seems to me there's a fairly simple formula for deciding whether to do so.
You can ask yourself the following questions:
~~~~Is there reason to think that the link or other post is uncivil?
if yes-- don't post
if no--post
if maybe-- either:1. don't post, because there is a chance it's uncivil and it would be better not to post it ;
or: 2. Ask yourself the following question:
~~~Am I will to take the risk of being blocked for some time, despite posting the link?
if yes--post the link
if no--don't post the link
if maybe-- ask the further question:~~~ How important is it to me to post the link or other information?
important enough to be blocked as a result-- post the link
not important enough to be blocked as a result-- don't post the link
not sure-- don't post the link; or ask yourself the third question again, and keep asking it until you figure out if it's important enough or notAs far as I can tell, this is the only way that any individual can decide whether to post a link or other information that may or may not be civil.
I hope this helps.
Honore
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 10:15:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-Simple criteria, posted by Honore on December 6, 2006, at 10:00:29
Well, I'm certain I guess it is. ;)
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 10:43:28
In reply to Lou's response t aspectsof deput/.member gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 9:54:40
> > >Since that definition now includes ... posting a link to a blog
> >
> > There's no rule or interpretation of a rule that says one cannot post a link to a blog. Again, the issue is if the material in the blog is civil or not. The blog that Dinah posted about specifically is one that contains material that would be deemed uncivil if posted on the board.
> >
> > > then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
> >
> > I suppose they could, but it seems simpler to me to determine whether the material is civil or not versus trying to apply every example of every decision to one question.
> >
> > > If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here.
> >
> > I'll take you up on this. Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not. And if you simply must have his ruling versus trusting anyone else, I'm certain you can send it to him. I would not expect a reply in the timeframe you seem to prefer, however. My guess is, Dr. Bob asked you to send it to someone else first because he knows he really does not have the time to get to it soon. Also, he supports the use of civility buddies for just this kind of thing.
> >
> > What am I using to base this statement on? Confidence in my common sense.
> >
> > > For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it.
> >
> > I'm certain it is not a "requirement". I'm certain that if you were to send it to him for review, you would not get in any kind of trouble for sending it or face any administrative action, unless there is some agreement in place between you and Dr. Bob of which I am unaware. I took his post asking you to send it to someone else first as his preference and as advice, not as some new requirement just for you.
> >
> > > There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
> >
> > Stop signs do not also say, "Go" and yet we go anyway when appropriate. I doubt you'll ever see any kind of post "rescinding" his request to you to send it to someone else first.
> >
> > Is there some reason you don't wish to send it to anyone else first? You've had all this time, afterall.
> >
> > > What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
> >
> > There would not be any harm to anyone else if someone clarified this to your satisfaction. I doubt that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire.
> >
> > Hope this helps. I've answered to the best of my ability based on my experience both as a poster and as a deputy. Please consider this response as a response from a deputy trying to help someone understand the rules.
> >
> > gg
>
> Friends,
> In the post above by deputy/member gardenergirl, she writes,[...you can send it to (Dr. Hsiung)..he has no way of knowing if you sent it to someone else beforehand or not...].
> I ask,
> A. Could not Dr. Hsiung ask me after I send it to him as to if and what person I sent the post to before I sent it to him?
> B. If he did, in your opinion, is deputy/member gg's statement to me here, in >any< way whatsoever, a suggestion to me to deceive Dr.Hsiung? If you take the position that it is not, could you post in this thread why you say that it is not?
> Then the deputy/member writes,[..I am certain you can send it to him...] I ask,
> C. By what authority is seen from the deputy/member to make that >certain<?
> Then the deputy/ member writes,[...my guess is...
> D I ask, why guess?
> Lou
>
> Friends,
The deputy/member gardenergirl writes here,[... I doubt that you will see (Dr. Hsiung) rescind his request (or requirement?) to you to send it to someone else first...]
I ask;
A. What could be the rational for anyone >doubting< tht Dr. Hsiung will not rescind the request(or requirement?) to me?
B. Could there not be a good and just cause for Dr. Hsiung to post to me that I can send the post to him without asking someone else >first<?
Then the deputy/member writes,[...is there a reason that you do not want to send it to someone else first?...]
Yes, there is to me a great reason to have me want to send it to Dr. Hsiung without the request (or requirement?) to send it to him first. But I ask;
A. What , in your opinions here, do you have as to why this is not by DR. Hsiung made clear to me per my request for clarification, as to if I can send it to him without the request (or requirement?) to send it to someone else first? I would like to know one way or the other with certainty so that I can post within the rules here. After all, is it not Dr. Hsiung that made the request(or requirement) to me? I am only asking him about if he will allow me to send it to him >without< any conditions or not. Is that, in your opinions, too much to ask? If so, could you post here why? Is it, in your opinioins, >civil< and/or >supportive< for the owner/moderator that makes the rules to leave this question at this time unanswered as to what he has written to me?
If Dr. Hsiung was to rescind any request (or requirement/) that I send it to someone else >first<, then this discussion could reach its logical conclusion. I could either have my post determined by him, or submit to the condition that have to ask someone else first or something else. But at this time, I am unsure as to if I can or can not send the post ahead for his determination before posting it or not.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 10:48:07
In reply to Lou's response t aspectsof deput/.member gg's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 10:43:28
> > > >Since that definition now includes ... posting a link to a blog
> > >
> > > There's no rule or interpretation of a rule that says one cannot post a link to a blog. Again, the issue is if the material in the blog is civil or not. The blog that Dinah posted about specifically is one that contains material that would be deemed uncivil if posted on the board.
> > >
> > > > then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
> > >
> > > I suppose they could, but it seems simpler to me to determine whether the material is civil or not versus trying to apply every example of every decision to one question.
> > >
> > > > If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here.
> > >
> > > I'll take you up on this. Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not. And if you simply must have his ruling versus trusting anyone else, I'm certain you can send it to him. I would not expect a reply in the timeframe you seem to prefer, however. My guess is, Dr. Bob asked you to send it to someone else first because he knows he really does not have the time to get to it soon. Also, he supports the use of civility buddies for just this kind of thing.
> > >
> > > What am I using to base this statement on? Confidence in my common sense.
> > >
> > > > For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it.
> > >
> > > I'm certain it is not a "requirement". I'm certain that if you were to send it to him for review, you would not get in any kind of trouble for sending it or face any administrative action, unless there is some agreement in place between you and Dr. Bob of which I am unaware. I took his post asking you to send it to someone else first as his preference and as advice, not as some new requirement just for you.
> > >
> > > > There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
> > >
> > > Stop signs do not also say, "Go" and yet we go anyway when appropriate. I doubt you'll ever see any kind of post "rescinding" his request to you to send it to someone else first.
> > >
> > > Is there some reason you don't wish to send it to anyone else first? You've had all this time, afterall.
> > >
> > > > What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
> > >
> > > There would not be any harm to anyone else if someone clarified this to your satisfaction. I doubt that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps. I've answered to the best of my ability based on my experience both as a poster and as a deputy. Please consider this response as a response from a deputy trying to help someone understand the rules.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> > Friends,
> > In the post above by deputy/member gardenergirl, she writes,[...you can send it to (Dr. Hsiung)..he has no way of knowing if you sent it to someone else beforehand or not...].
> > I ask,
> > A. Could not Dr. Hsiung ask me after I send it to him as to if and what person I sent the post to before I sent it to him?
> > B. If he did, in your opinion, is deputy/member gg's statement to me here, in >any< way whatsoever, a suggestion to me to deceive Dr.Hsiung? If you take the position that it is not, could you post in this thread why you say that it is not?
> > Then the deputy/member writes,[..I am certain you can send it to him...] I ask,
> > C. By what authority is seen from the deputy/member to make that >certain<?
> > Then the deputy/ member writes,[...my guess is...
> > D I ask, why guess?
> > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> The deputy/member gardenergirl writes here,[... I doubt that you will see (Dr. Hsiung) rescind his request (or requirement?) to you to send it to someone else first...]
> I ask;
> A. What could be the rational for anyone >doubting< tht Dr. Hsiung will not rescind the request(or requirement?) to me?
> B. Could there not be a good and just cause for Dr. Hsiung to post to me that I can send the post to him without asking someone else >first<?
> Then the deputy/member writes,[...is there a reason that you do not want to send it to someone else first?...]
> Yes, there is to me a great reason to have me want to send it to Dr. Hsiung without the request (or requirement?) to send it to him first. But I ask;
> A. What , in your opinions here, do you have as to why this is not by DR. Hsiung made clear to me per my request for clarification, as to if I can send it to him without the request (or requirement?) to send it to someone else first? I would like to know one way or the other with certainty so that I can post within the rules here. After all, is it not Dr. Hsiung that made the request(or requirement) to me? I am only asking him about if he will allow me to send it to him >without< any conditions or not. Is that, in your opinions, too much to ask? If so, could you post here why? Is it, in your opinioins, >civil< and/or >supportive< for the owner/moderator that makes the rules to leave this question at this time unanswered as to what he has written to me?
> If Dr. Hsiung was to rescind any request (or requirement/) that I send it to someone else >first<, then this discussion could reach its logical conclusion. I could either have my post determined by him, or submit to the condition that have to ask someone else first or something else. But at this time, I am unsure as to if I can or can not send the post ahead for his determination before posting it or not.
> Lou
>
>
>
Friends,
There is a great reason for me to want to be allowed to send the post to Dr. Hsiung without sending it to someone else >first<.
This is the correction to one in the previous post of that nature that may have come out differently.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 11:02:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-Simple criteria » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2006, at 9:34:36
> >Since that definition now includes ... posting a link to a blog
>
> There's no rule or interpretation of a rule that says one cannot post a link to a blog. Again, the issue is if the material in the blog is civil or not. The blog that Dinah posted about specifically is one that contains material that would be deemed uncivil if posted on the board.
>
> > then for someone to determine before hand if something is uncivil, they could include in their thinking those two criteria, would they not?
>
> I suppose they could, but it seems simpler to me to determine whether the material is civil or not versus trying to apply every example of every decision to one question.
>
> > If anyone can post here as to that they are sure that I can send it to him >without sending it to someone else first<,{and post here what they use to say that they are sure of that}, that is the question that I have here.
>
> I'll take you up on this. Yes, you can send it to Dr. Bob. Frankly, he has no way of knowing whether you sent it to anyone else beforehand or not. And if you simply must have his ruling versus trusting anyone else, I'm certain you can send it to him. I would not expect a reply in the timeframe you seem to prefer, however. My guess is, Dr. Bob asked you to send it to someone else first because he knows he really does not have the time to get to it soon. Also, he supports the use of civility buddies for just this kind of thing.
>
> What am I using to base this statement on? Confidence in my common sense.
>
> > For I am at this time still unsure if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request , or if it is a requirement to me, to send it to someone else first before he will review it.
>
> I'm certain it is not a "requirement". I'm certain that if you were to send it to him for review, you would not get in any kind of trouble for sending it or face any administrative action, unless there is some agreement in place between you and Dr. Bob of which I am unaware. I took his post asking you to send it to someone else first as his preference and as advice, not as some new requirement just for you.
>
> > There is a statement here that says that you can, but I do not see where there is a statement that says that the request,or requirement to me to send it to someone else first has been dropped and that they are sure of that and why they are sure.
>
> Stop signs do not also say, "Go" and yet we go anyway when appropriate. I doubt you'll ever see any kind of post "rescinding" his request to you to send it to someone else first.
>
> Is there some reason you don't wish to send it to anyone else first? You've had all this time, afterall.
>
> > What harm, if any, could there be for this to be made clear to me here as to if I have to or not send the request to another first? If anyone thinks that there could be some harm done to someone if that question is answered to me here, could you post in this thread what person(s) it could harm and why?
>
> There would not be any harm to anyone else if someone clarified this to your satisfaction. I doubt that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire.
>
> Hope this helps. I've answered to the best of my ability based on my experience both as a poster and as a deputy. Please consider this response as a response from a deputy trying to help someone understand the rules.
>
> ggFriends,
It is written here,[...There would not be any harm to anyone if you had your request clarified.I >doubt< that's what could be standing in the way of you getting the clarification you desire...].
Well, if there could be |no harm| if my request for clarification was answered, as I desire, which would be to clarify if there is or is not the stipulation to me that I ask someone else first, and the deputy/member writes that she doubts that what could be standing in the way of me getting the clarification, then I ask;
A. What, in your opinions, could be standing in the way?
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on December 6, 2006, at 11:12:37
In reply to Lou's response to-There's no such rule, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 20:21:57
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by verne on December 6, 2006, at 11:25:40
In reply to I have a dream by Martin Luther King, posted by zazenduckie on December 6, 2006, at 11:12:37
I See The Promised Land
April 3, 1968Memphis, Tennessee
Thank you very kindly, my friends. As I listened to Ralph Abernathy in his eloquent and generous introduction and then thought about myself, I wondered who he was talking about. It's always good to have your closest friend and associate say something good about you. And Ralph is the best friend that I have in the world.
I'm delighted to see each of you here tonight in spite of a storm warning. You reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow. Something is happening in Memphis, something is happening in our world.
As you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of general and panoramic view of the whole human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, "Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?"-- I would take my mental flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn't stop there. I would move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues of reality.
But I wouldn't stop there. I would go on, even to the great heyday of the Roman Empire. And I would see developments around there, through various emperors and leaders. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even come up to the day of the Renaissance, and get a quick picture of all that the Renaissance did for the cultural and esthetic life of man. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even go by the way that the man for whom I'm named had his habitat. And I would watch Martin Luther as he tacked his ninety-five theses on the door at the church in Wittenberg.
But I wouldn't stop there. I would come on up even to 1863, and watch a vacillating president by the name of Abraham Lincoln finally come to the conclusion that he had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even come up the early thirties, and see a man grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation. And come with an eloquent cry that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
But I wouldn't stop there. Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, "If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy." Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding--something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya: Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee--the cry is always the same--"We want to be free."
And another reason that I'm happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we're going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence.
That is where we are today. And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn't done, and in a hurry, to bring the colored peoples of the world out of their long years of poverty, their long years of hurt and neglect, the whole world is doomed. Now, I'm just happy that God has allowed me to live in this period, to see what is unfolding. And I'm happy that he's allowed me to be in Memphis.
I can remember, I can remember when Negroes were just going around as Ralph has said, so often, scratching where they didn't itch, and laughing when they were not tickled. But that day is all over. We mean business now, and we are determined to gain our rightful place in God's world.
And that's all this whole thing is about. We aren't engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying that we are God's children. And that we don't have to live like we are forced to live.
Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.
Secondly, let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we've got to keep attention on that. That's always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers were on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn't get around to that.
Now we're going to march again, and we've got to march again, in order to put the issue where it is supposed to be. And force everybody to see that there are thirteen hundred of God's children here suffering, sometimes going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering how this thing is going to come out. That's the issue. And we've got to say to the nation: we know it's coming out. For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory.
We aren't going to let any mace stop us. We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don't know what to do. I've seen them so often. I remember in Birmingham, Alabama, when we were in that majestic struggle there we would move out of the 16th Street Baptist Church day after day; by the hundreds we would move out. And Bull Connor would tell them to send the dogs forth and they did come; but we just went before the dogs singing, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me round." Bull Connor next would say, "Turn the fire hoses on." And as I said to you the other night, Bull Connor didn't know history. He knew a kind of physics that somehow didn't relate to the transphysics that we knew about. And that was the fact that there was a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. And we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water.
That couldn't stop us. And we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we'd go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we'd just go on singing. "Over my head I see freedom in the air." And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, "Take them off," and they did; and we would just go in the paddy wagon singing, "We Shall Overcome." And every now and then we'd get in the jail, and we'd see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn't adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham.
Now we've got to go on to Memphis just like that. I call upon you to be with us Monday. Now about injunctions: We have an injunction and we're going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.
We need all of you. And you know what's beautiful to me, is to see all of these ministers of the Gospel. It's a marvelous picture. Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Somehow, the preacher must say with Jesus, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor."
And I want to commend the preachers, under the leadership of these noble men: James Lawson, one who has been in this struggle for many years; he's been to jail for struggling; but he's still going on, fighting for the rights of his people. Rev. Ralph Jackson, Billy Kiles; I could just go right on down the list, but time will not permit. But I want to thank them all. And I want you to thank them, because so often, preachers aren't concerned about anything but themselves. And I'm always happy to see a relevant ministry.
It's alright to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's alright to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's alright to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preacher must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do.
Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people, individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively, that means all of us together, collectively we are richer than all the nation in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles, we don't need any Molotov cocktails, we just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda--fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy--what is the other bread?--Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying, they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.
But not only that, we've got to strengthen black institutions. I call upon you to take you money out of the banks downtown and deposit you money in Tri-State Bank--we want a "bank-in" movement in Memphis. So go by the savings and loan association. I'm not asking you something that we don't do ourselves at SCLC. Judge Hooks and others will tell you that we have an account here in the savings and loan association from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We're just telling you to follow what we're doing. Put your money there. You have six or seven black insurance companies in Memphis. Take out your insurance there. We want to have an "insurance-in."
Now there are some practical things we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here.
Now, let me say as I move to my conclusion that we've got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point, in Memphis. We've got to see it through. And when we have our march, you need to be there. Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together.
Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness. One day a man came to Jesus; and he wanted to raise some questions about some vital matters in life. At points, he wanted to trick Jesus, and show him that he knew a little more than Jesus knew, and through this, throw him off base. Now that question could have easily ended up in a philosophical and theological debate. But Jesus immediately pulled that question from mid-air, and placed it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho. And he talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn't stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, because he had the capacity to project the "I" into the "thou," and to be concerned about his brother. Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn't stop. At times we say they were busy going to church meetings--an ecclesiastical gathering--and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn't be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that "One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony." And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem, or down to Jericho, rather to organize a "Jericho Road Improvement Association." That's a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the casual root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effort.
But I'm going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It's possible that these men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as a setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road. It's really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles, or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you're about 2200 feet below sea level. That's a dangerous road. In the day of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass." And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?".
That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" "If I do no stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question.
Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.
You know, several years ago, I was in New York City autographing the first book that I had written. And while sitting there autographing books, a demented black woman came up. The only question I heard from her was, "Are you Martin Luther King?"
And I was looking down writing, and I said yes. And the next minute I felt something beating on my chest. Before I knew it I had been stabbed by this demented woman. I was rushed to Harlem Hospital. It was a dark Saturday afternoon. And that blade had gone through, and the X-rays revealed that the tip of the blade was on the edge of my aorta, the main artery. And once that's punctured, you drown in your own blood--that's the end of you.
It came out in the New York Times the next morning, that if I had sneezed, I would have died. Well, about four days later, they allowed me, after the operation, after my chest had been opened, and the blade had been taken out, to move around in the wheel chair in the hospital. They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states, and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget. I had received one from the President and the Vice-President. I've forgotten what those telegrams said. I'd received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I've forgotten what the letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I'll never forget it. It said simply, "Dear Dr. King: I am a ninth-grade student at the Whites Plains High School." She said, "While it should not matter, I would like to mention that I am a white girl. I read in the paper of your misfortune, and of your suffering. And I read that if you had sneezed, you would have died. And I'm simply writing you to say that I'm so happy that you didn't sneeze."
And I want to say tonight, I want to say that I am happy that I didn't sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting-in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream. And taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have had a chance later that year, in August, to try to tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been down in Selma, Alabama, to see the great movement there. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been in Memphis to see a community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I'm so happy that I didn't sneeze.
And they were telling me, now it doesn't matter now. It really doesn't matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us, the pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night."
And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say that threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
Posted by madeline on December 6, 2006, at 11:36:38
In reply to I have a dream by Martin Luther King, posted by zazenduckie on December 6, 2006, at 11:12:37
rhetoricians have proclaimed that to be the best speech ever written.
I absolutely agree.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 14:20:40
In reply to Re: Lou's response to-Simple criteria, posted by Honore on December 6, 2006, at 10:00:29
Friends,
It is written here that the poster as far as he/she could tell ,[...this is the |only way| that {any} individual can decide whether to post a link..that may or may not be civil...].
But there is a way written here in the TOS that writes that one can {always} email {Dr.Hsiung}to find out if the post is civil. And does not {always} rule out any request (or requiremnet?} to ask others >first<? Yet today, I am still unsure if DR. Hsiung is rescinding any stipulation to me, be it a request or a requirement, to ask someone else>first< before I can send it to him for a determination. If so, would this not be having a different standard for the posters in the FAQ example than for me here as in the next paragraph?
And is there not in the TOS here a link offered that DR. Hsiung has a member write that one can always ask Dr Hsiung in advance, does it not? Then when Dr. Hsiung asked me to take it to someone else first, then could he have not accepted it then when I originally brought the subject up? If so, then was I denied equal terms of service here? For he did not change his FAQ to include that {all} members are to >first< ask someone else before sending it to him, did he?
So there is a way different from {the only way} offered here by Honore. I ask; (email if you like for this)
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2006, at 20:29:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Honore's post-olyway?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 14:20:40
Friends,
If you are considering responding in this thread,I would like for you to consider the following an any reply.
In the following post, Dinah writes a reply to Dr.Hsiung . This concerns posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that I have requested that some notation be made that those posts in question are uncivil.
After reading Dinah's post, you could click on the line for the previous post that she responds to.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686416.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 2:21:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-goodchnge, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2006, at 17:25:08
> I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Bob, or any other single MD, possesses enough knowledge and understanding to review and certify the safety of all drug combinations in a forum where novel treatment strategies are discussed.
>
> It would be interesting to get some feedback from Dr. Bob on this.
>
> - Scott> I really like how the members of the community chime in with cautions, corrections, and reminders that "your mileage might vary" and check with your doc, etc. It increases the feeling of safety here for me.
>
> ggI agree with the above. In general, I think my preference is for members of this community to depend on each other rather than on me.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 7:05:25
In reply to Re: depending on each other, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 2:21:13
> > I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Bob, or any other single MD, possesses enough knowledge and understanding to review and certify the safety of all drug combinations in a forum where novel treatment strategies are discussed.
> >
> > It would be interesting to get some feedback from Dr. Bob on this.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > I really like how the members of the community chime in with cautions, corrections, and reminders that "your mileage might vary" and check with your doc, etc. It increases the feeling of safety here for me.
> >
> > gg
>
> I agree with the above. In general, I think my preference is for members of this community to depend on each other rather than on me.
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
Your response here is that your thinking is that you {prefer} the members here to depend on each other rather than you. I ask:
A. could then I post that what another here advocates about psychotropic drugs is not what I personally believe?
B. could I use the report feature and ask you to post a cautionary statement about a combination of drugs that another here posts about using? And if so, will you post the cautionary statement ?
C. Could I post a cautionary statement of including the research that shows that taking some psychotropic drugs could shorten the life of those that take them even if it includes infomation about Farben or Sarin?
D. Could I post the research that shows that taking some psychotropic drugs could increase the risk of suicide ideation even if others advocate their use here?
E. Could I post a cautionary statement as to what is known as to how combining alcohol with a benzodiazepine could be lethal?
F. could I post other cautionay statements that are supported by research even if the psychiatric community does not agree?
Lou Pilder
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 8:03:06
In reply to Re: depending on each other, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 2:21:13
Your board is your responsibility.
I know you almost never answer my questions about ethics or responsibility but I still ask them.
So it will be clear that you have chosen not to be responsible. That the issue was raised and you were aware of it and you declined to answer the questions or evaded the issues.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 8:18:00
In reply to YOU are responsible » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 8:03:06
Please do not post anything which might cause others to believe you don't blindly trust the administrator.
> Your board is your responsibility.
>
> I know you almost never answer my questions about ethics or responsibility but I still ask them.
>
> So it will be clear that you have chosen not to be responsible. That the issue was raised and you were aware of it and you declined to answer the questions or evaded the issues.
>
>
>
>
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 17:48:42
In reply to Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by zazenduckie on November 27, 2006, at 16:59:15
I see you also linked this to ASV's in your "cyber cemetery" as you call your collection of files concerning the dead or assumed dead.
I AM glad you apparently read it though I think it casts your "memorial" section in rather a different light to have it linked there doesn't it?
Seems more like a resource for your little research presentations?
But thanks for acknowledging you read it. I think that is important.
> >
> > Do you feel that Psycho-Babble played a causative role in the suicide of Ame Sans Vie?
> >
>
> No, not causative. But I think someone should take a careful look at whether ASV's relationship with Babble was good either for himself or for others who read the years of archived posts Dr Bob keeps available to the public. I hope someone lets us know what the cause of death was and whether the years of extreme medication and other substance use he described here contributed.
>
> The last post (or one of the last) that he made before his reported death was a recipe for making poppy tea.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20061013/msgs/697253.html
>
> Another thread concerns his unusual drug regimen. I think the reaction of the other posters is also notable.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl?post=/usr/local/apache/htdocs/babble/20051106/msgs/576091.html#576091
>
> One of the most pognant lines from ASV's replies to one of his admirers is as follows
> .....................
> > How does your doctor let you have two barbiturates and two benzodiazepines, and Desoxyn? my goodness you sound like elvis presley and all his prescriptions.
> >
> > MWAH!
>
> lmfao, I love the Elvis analogy, lmao. It was painfree in my case to get all these things prescribed. For one thing, my psychiatrist, therapist, and GP all know I'm quite savvy when it comes to psychopharmacology. And of course, my pdoc had all my medical records from prior doctors that I personally requested be released to him so he could see the extent and debilitating nature of my dillema.
> .........................
>
> Like Elvis Presley indeed but so much younger.
>
> I don't know if his drug taking had anything to do with his death. If it did I hope someone holds his doctors accountable.
>
> As for Babble I don't know. For me it was troubling to read those posts. Dr Bob is always saying your freedom of speech is limited here and I wonder if he has ever considered what impact this kind of speech and information sharing may have. I wish someone would think seriously about this. No point in sending in an adverse incident report...they just go to Dr Bob. Is there any accountability at all anywhere for internet medical forums? I don't think there is but I think maybe there should be.
>
> I've read all the disclaimers etc etc. I think Dr Bob is responsible for everything that is posted here in the same way a publisher is responsible for what is printed in his newspaper. His use of his professional title while disclaiming all responsibility troubles me.
>
> At the same time I am aware that many people say Babble helps them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2006, at 0:51:54
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's response » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2006, at 7:05:25
> A. could then I post that what another here advocates about psychotropic drugs is not what I personally believe?
> C. Could I post a cautionary statement of including the research that shows that taking some psychotropic drugs could shorten the life of those that take them even if it includes infomation about Farben or Sarin?
> D. Could I post the research that shows that taking some psychotropic drugs could increase the risk of suicide ideation even if others advocate their use here?
> E. Could I post a cautionary statement as to what is known as to how combining alcohol with a benzodiazepine could be lethal?
> F. could I post other cautionay statements that are supported by research even if the psychiatric community does not agree?
>
> Lou PilderWould information about Farben or Sarin be necessary? Apart from that, I think posts like the above are already being posted...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2006, at 15:11:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2006, at 0:51:54
DR. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...would information about I.G.Farben and Sarin be necessary?
Any information that could be educational could be posted here under the mission of the forum as to support and education. Is there some reason that the education that I could offer about I.G. Farben and Sarin, to you could not be necessary? If so, could you post here that and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
Lou Pilder
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.