![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 203 to 227 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 20:24:33
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
I'm sorry Alex. Ignore what I say if you don't agree. I just don't really understand why you think the way you do.
I'm sorry, I won't ever try to make you rephrase or apologize again.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
Bob's 'above' the rules. He thinks it is perfectly acceptable for him to judge that Muffled or Zen were being 'uncivil' in saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk. He thinks civility has to do with decency - so I guess he thought their saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk was indecent, too. He judged that the community would be 'better off' if they were blocked for a time.
If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil', 'decent' or 'indecent', to be 'positive contributors' or to be 'harmful for the community' then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however. People have told him repeatedly why they have trouble with some of what he does. Look, now, here he is trying to say what he thinks makes a good friend. What gives him authority? It isn't like there is anything like a consensus from the psychiatric community. What gives him expertise to be the authority?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
But I think it is positively harmful for him to present himself like he has some access to the true nature of friendship, civility, or decency, that escapes those who do not agree with him. Maybe he doesn't think this... But then what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
The issue is then one of false advertising.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2009, at 22:17:56
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
> >
> > Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
> >
> >
>
> that doesn't make your policy right.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...that doesn't make...].
In reading justs parts of this topic, I find many aspects of what I think is of great importance to the members of a mental health community.
The aspect of the apology that is being discussed here is one of them. You see, there could be unbeknownst to some of you the thread where this came up . If you could email me for that, then I think that you could see aspects of importance here and what could be the issue involving the apology.
The apology is to who? The board? Mr. Hsiung as head of the board? The member? something else?
Now if the apology is to the member that was the recipiant of the stament in question, then is it not up to that member to accept or not the apology on the basis of being sincere and sufficiant? If so, how could one determine if it is or is not? Would an apology make what is unacceptable any less unacceptable to allow the statement to stand as not being sanctioned?
Let us reason together. Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction? If so, is that sincere and sufficiant of the one apologizing?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2009, at 4:33:07
> Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.
you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???before i was talking about the stupid rules...
now i'm actually thinking that it is denseness or dumbness on your part. obviously deliberate obtuseness at any rate.
i don't think it is civil at all of you to play such pointless games with us talking things round and round and i can't tell whether it is due to denseness, dumbness, or deliberate obtuseness. i also can't tell which interpretation would be more charitable.
at this point, i really don't care. because i don't voluntarily seek out interactions that are like that. i thought you were different... i think i was delusional, or something...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
>
> > Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.I'm not actually looking for support when I post on the admin board. Not terribly sure what the point of the admin board is anymore, but I remember when the admin board was different in the sense that it wasn't about 'support and education' (in Bob's sense).
So I'm not looking for support. I'm not even looking for other people to post in agreement with what I'm saying about the rules. Not too much looking in the archives shows me that others have felt similarly. Not too much looking on the boards now shows me that many have reduced their input significantly or left because they didn't feel that you were approaching the issue receptively or intelligently. Because they got sick of you talking around the issue and they gave up wondering whether it was that you didn't get it or whether you couldn't get it.
Posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
>Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>If so, is that sincere and sufficient of the one apologizing?It's implicit in your question. Perhaps not.
Posted by muffled on August 14, 2009, at 22:09:48
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
> I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however.
Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
--
> If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil' ... then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
>
> what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
>
> What it comes down to: It is his site.I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
--
> you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
>
> alexandra_kI don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
> >Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
>
> Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>
> SigismundIs anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
Once again you try and turn things around... And sabotage the whole discussion. Can't be bothered talking to you, really.
> Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
No, that is not it. The thing is that you put yourself in the position of judging that others words are 'uncivil' or 'not good for the community' or 'disrespectful' or whatever when there is far from consensus among the experts that the persons words are these things. How civil is that (in your sense)?? And yet... You repeatedly do this. And what is more, you think that up to a one year block is appropriate sanction for the times (which are idiosyncratic at best) that you choose to extend your (idiosyncratic at best) interpretation in an attempt to justify this. That is your decision. Don't be so very surprised if people judge that to be... Uncivil at best. Stupid, even, if you expect that people will just lap it all up because you profess 'psychiatrist' and 'university of chicago' affiliation (even when you aren't bound by their codes of conduct in your little enterprise here).
> I don't expect you to feel the same way about me and others, but I do ask you to treat both me and others civilly.
whatever that means...
> Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
depends on the rule and on how you choose to interpret my words when you judge them.
> > you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???
> I don't see them doing that now to try to support you.
i didn't think the admin board was about support. most people i know have simply given up on the whole thing and have either left or simply choose to refrain from wasting their breath trying to be heard on admin.
> Is anybody else assuming they won't be effective if they try to help Alex avoid a block?
how about you Bob? anything you think you can do to avoid your blocking me??
interpret my words charitably (civilly even???)?
consider your conduct??
i don't know why i don't just leave you to your little chosen circle of idealizers, really. 'good' little group you have selected, indeed...
Posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 5:44:24
I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
Someone has to apply the rule. Or how else would it be effectuated? whom would you suggest for that role other than Bob? Aside from his role as owner of this board, and per se, I don't see anyone else who's established a claim to doing it here.
There may be circumstances when a year long block is appropriate-- the specifics would be debatable. Many may not agree with Bob's particular judgments in cases, or even with some elements of his general approach. Is there anyone whose general approach and specific decisions you expect to agree with entirely?
Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value? Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
I 'm really having trouble following the implications, or assumptions, of many of your positions about this.
And I personally feel uneasy with some of the discussion.. I don't know if you'll get blocked or not, and I certainly hope you don't-- I wouldn't presume to suggest that you say anything you don't believe-- but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
Nadezda
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
> I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
What is important practically about blocking muffled and zen for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk and yet not blocking nikki for the same? what is important practically about blocking lou for posting more than three and a row and not blocking others for the same? is this understandable or reasonably applied? it is understandable that zen got blocked for one year for saying something along the lines of 'I was having a sh*t day' - do you think? or do you... simply not really think on these cases? how come?
(Is it really that you disagree with me that the above is unfair and unreasonable?)
And it can't have been mere oversight, even. It was brought to his attention about the unfairness during the year that zen was blocked... What is that? A sign that he has too much power, I think. 'Better to leave the past in the past' - indeed. Never mind that his decision to do so was affecting anothers present. And that is not okay.
> Do you honestly feel that civility is any more obscure in meaning than fairness, reasonableness, or any other value?
And countries get invaded in the name of 'freedom'. Yeah. Don't make it right.
> Do you honestly think that there's some need for concensus among experts-- even if there were experts, to be summoned-- to validate the worth of something like civility? Isn't that merely a norm of social interaction? Why do we need experts for that?
Well... Maybe if the UN reached something like consensus about when an invasion was justified people would be left feeling a little different about the invasion. Not to 'validate the worth of something like freedom' - of course. But to put some checks and balanced on what is allowed to declare it falls under its name.
> but I wonder if you have any feeling that any of what you've said could possibly be hurtful or make anyone feel put down?
And I could... Wonder the same about you. And round and round and round we go (and as usual Bob will prevail).
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2009, at 16:17:41
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Nadezda on August 17, 2009, at 15:25:30
> I'm not sure, Alex, why you assume that people who don't particularly agree with you and who more or less accept the idea of civility as an important practical one, that can be understood and reasonably applied, are idealizers of Bob.
I feel the same way. I felt put down as I don't think it is necessary that I be among a small circle of idealizers of Dr. Bob in order to support guidelines of civility in posting. And so what if I were among those who idealize Dr. Bob? Is the word idealize a pejorative when it comes to Dr. Bob? Is it possible that the circle not be so small?
- Scott
Posted by muffled on August 17, 2009, at 16:33:36
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
I'm NOT saying this cuz of Bob.
I am saying this of my own accord.
But if you don't want to be blocked, you have to do what Bob says, cuz as you said, it IS his website.
That is why I am seldom here.
So my suggestion is to apologize to those who felt dissed by your words, cuz I know you don't mean to make others feel bad, and then walk away.
You can't win.
Everyonce in awhile I get sucked in, but then I realize I need to walk away.
I have found another site.
Babble will always be special to me, but I can't hack how Bob runs it.
I got tired of beating my head against the wall.
He won't change.
If you want, you can bmail me, I am not big on bmail, but sometimes I do.
Take care,
M
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 15:37:07
Do people think it is fine for Dr Bob to block muffled and zen (zen for one year) for saying `sh*t' without an asterisk whereas not block Nikki (not even give her a warning) for saying `sh*t' without an asterisk?
One could of course say 'its his site' - but isn't this to acknowledge the unfairness of the situation and just basically advocate... sucking up the unfairness?
One might be tempted to say `oh well, he must have just missed it - he wouldn't intentionally be unfair in that way'. Only trouble with this was that people did bring it to his attention and he muttered something about 'leaving past civility determinations in the past'. not that that was much help to zen who was blocked in the present.
so... What to make of this?
Is turning a blind eye to it part of idealization does one think?
Turing a blind eye to all the unfairnesses in the archives...
Since when did 'idealizing' become an insult?
I've asked SLS pretty pretty pretty please (enforcement and the details of what one needs to do to get enforcement around here aside) pretty please simply don't post to me.
I feel insulted by Bob not being able to answer fairly straight-forward questions. By him trying to present either-or options in the name of 'friendship'. By his... Popularity contest around here. Why was Lou required to refrain from more than three posts in a row? Popular demand. I suspect he will lie low about now... Wait for people to jump on me... Then block me by Popular demand. That is fine. I ask myself: Is this really a group that I want to be part of? Admin is about... Professing ones love for Bob, it seems. Of course, that is administrative. Posting ones concerns about a dictator being unfair in his determinations and appealing to authorities (U Chicago and psychiatrist) when he is not bound by their codes of conduct is of course... Not administrative at all. I see. Really... What would you call that?
Self-serving springs to mind...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:40:44
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
And people have tried to talk to him reasonably about this. Over and over and over and over. And he just turns things around answering questions with questions until people get frustrated... And then some others get scared that those who are pressing him will... Kill him or something so they start to get antsy and then things are escalating... And then a blocking (by popular demand). And round and round things go...
And nothing changes.
At the very least: Don't claim affiliations when you are not bound by their codes of conduct.
And: Appreciate that your civility determinations are very idiosyncratic (not much inter-rater reliability in what you consider a blockable for a year offense - not without CONSIDERABLE training at any rate - and the majority of other psychiatrists would not agree).
So: Block people for up to one year (plenty of evidence that that is harmful) for idiosyncratic reasons under the name of 'civility'. If you think that is okay... I really don't know what the hell is supposed to justify that...
But that does seem to be what (in fact) you are doing.
If that is The Way Things Are then fine. But at least be honest about that fact.
And be honest about the fact that this simply isn't negotiable. Don't pretend to give a sh*t what we think when you so obviously don't and when you so obviously aren't prepared to look at what actually is best for this site (as opposed to 'for you') at all.
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 6:28:45
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 16, 2009, at 18:11:22
Hi doctor.
> I've asked SLS pretty pretty pretty please (enforcement and the details of what one needs to do to get enforcement around here aside) pretty please simply don't post to me.
Perhaps you could review the DNP guidelines here. I believe I have the privilege to respond to a post without posting to or directly addressing a particular party who has requested a DNP. Of course, a DNP is supposed to be petitioned for via the administrative notification system.
I will continue to post along this thread if it is my desire to do so, regardless of the proximity with which my posts appear to any other individual's posts.
Nothing new here.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
I may have once idealized Dr. Bob. It's not an insult really. I don't think I do idealize him after all these years. I *do* trust him to be exactly who he is - at least the person he's always been on Babble. Which isn't the same as idealizing him. And for me the person he's always been on Babble is someone who is a good enough administrator with flaws and strengths. Just like most people.
I've been incredibly rude to him in emails from time to time. In emails. And yet I truly do regret those times when I am rude to him.
Sometimes I've really been angry about other things on the board, and Dr. Bob is a safe person to be angry with. He never responds in kind. He stands like an immovable object in the face of my storm of fury. I don't believe that I have the power to hurt him. Sometimes that makes me even more angry with him, and makes me feel like upping the ante to get an emotional reaction. Which never works with Dr. Bob, which is why he's safe. That may be idealization, but I don't think so. I see it as being a good quality in an administrator and perhaps in general, and one I sometimes wish I was able to develop, but I'm not unaware that it comes with downsides, as most good qualities do.
Being angry with him allows me to be less angry with others. And since it can generally be seen that anything that does or doesn't happen on board is his ultimate responsibility, because he sets the rules and determines how they will be enforced, it's always easy enough to be angry with him.
Yet I always feel genuine regret, and I always apologize.
Sometimes the reason I apologize is that I feel regret for saying something that I realize in my heart of hearts he did not deserve.
Sometimes I apologize even if I believe he deserved every word I said. Because what Dr. Bob does is what Dr. Bob does. What I do is what I do. In my eyes, when I speak to anyone, whether positively or negatively, I'm expressing more than my beliefs about them. I'm also expressing information about myself. About my own values. One of my values is that in public or in private, people deserve the basic respect that all human beings deserve. I can express disagreement with a person's choices or their beliefs without expressing disrespect for the person.
Dr. Bob probably doesn't mind if people email him whatever thoughts are on their mind. I doubt that anyone could be ruder than I have been on occasion, although perhaps I just don't have a good enough imagination.
But he asks that on board, we treat each other - himself included - with basic respect and civility. We don't have to *feel* respect. But he asks that we *behave* in accordance with his site guidelines. I don't think that's a bad thing to ask. It's perfectly possible to disagree with him policies, to ask him to change his policies, while being civil to him.
And we did, and he did. He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula. Those issues are in the past, and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again. He can't change the past, he did change the future. He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic. I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
And.... While this is slightly off topic, no one is blocked for a year for saying anything at all. Someone receives a PBC for saying something, then a one week block, then it increases from there, more slowly now than it used to. A lot of times there is a tendency to think "Someone was blocked for a year for saying *that*?" And the answer is no, of course someone wasn't blocked for a year for saying that. Any more than the last out is the one that causes the game to be lost.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 6:28:45
> Perhaps you could review the DNP guidelines here.Of course. The 'rules' come before 'civility'. I mean 'pretty pretty please do not post to me' what is so hard to understand?
> I believe I have the privilege to respond to a post without posting to or directly addressing a particular party who has requested a DNP. Of course, a DNP is supposed to be petitioned for via the administrative notification system.
Mmm hmm. Of course. This makes the best sense of 'civility', indeed.
> I will continue to post along this thread if it is my desire to do so, regardless of the proximity with which my posts appear to any other individual's posts.
Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this. Of course... Bob will prevail.
> Nothing new here.Indeed...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
In reply to Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
> He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula.
But he didn't apologize to Zen or Muffled. He didn't take what he did to them back.
>Those issues are in the past,
I don't think they are. There isn't a system that doesn't allow a poster to post more than three posts in a row - and his enforcement of that rule is just as arbitrary and intermittent as his enforcement of the swearing without an asterisk rule. Which is to say sometimes he chooses to enforce (and sanction blocks of up to one year) whereas otherwise he does not.
> and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again.
Not with the three post rule.
>He can't change the past, he did change the future.
But the 'past' is the 'present' when people are presently blocked for his decisions that were made in the past.
> He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic.
When he appreciates that he can no longer sustain the support of the community without changing... He changes. I don't think it is about 'reason' so much as 'popular opinion', however. And not only that... The 'popular opinion' of those who he has chosen not to block. A self selected 'opinion' if ever there was one...
> I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
> That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
And yet in all my time here, I do think that. I think it because I've experienced it. Well, to be clear, Dr. Bob's idea of a straight answer and mine don't necessarily agree. But I have experienced him listening to a rational argument and seeing the validity of it.
And in all my time here, I've never known Dr. Bob to do anything at all because of popular opinion alone. Never.
I'm not saying that how you experience Dr. Bob isn't valid, but it is not how I experience him.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:30:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
Perhaps more to the point, have you ever seen Dr. Bob change his opinion because someone has been uncivil to him?
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
I don't think I've seen him change his opinion at all. Kinda like... Bush.. The whole war on terror (on incivility) is a war that is worth fighting indeed... Even when the UN (the majority of psychiatrists) don't accept that the way he thinks that one should fight it is the way that one should fight it...
I don't particularly care what Bob judges to be 'civil' or 'uncivil'. He is pretty 'uncivil' (according to his own definition) but then that is okay (according to him) because the role that he has elected himself in does not require him to be civil. See what a reasonable and civil person he is????? No, it is his self appointed role to judge of us whether we are civil or not civil, decent or indecent, good for the community or bad. His judgements are so clear and authorative that they justify sanctions of... Being blocked for up to one year.
Defining yourself as God doesn't make you so Dr Bob.
You gotta have known someone would call you on your sh*t one day - right?
Is that what this site is? A whole 'playing chicken' experiment with respect to when someone might call you on your sh*t?
Called. You are.
Now what you gonna do? Exclude me from the circle of opinions you feel you have to take seriously, of course (ie label me uncivil and be done with me)
Question: In good conscience???
Really?????????
I thought you were smarter than that...
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
> Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:54:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
> > Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
>
> Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
>
> Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?By the way, I owe you nothing.
- Scott
Posted by Nadezda on August 18, 2009, at 12:58:26
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
You aren't suggesting, are you, Alex, that there's any analogy between the war on terror and the civility rules here?
Or any argument that derives from the fact that you can construct a sentence of the form: "X (a person) has an idea about Y (something to be done) which Z (some other arguably virtuous group) doesn't accept"--? do you?
If that were some sort of argument, then I could say, with irony: Obama's (Bush's) plans for health insurance (war on terror) is a struggle worth engaging even though the people attending town hall meetings to voice their opinions (the UN) don't accept that one should pursue it...
You really have to draw some connection between civility here and the war on terror (assumed to be a bad thing) for this sort of point to have any force. But there's no connection. To put it otherwise, it's an implied equivalence that is unsupportable. It's like comparing bad apples to the rack. It fails from lack of resonance between the terms.
It doesn't strengthens your objections to the civility rules--
Nadezda
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.