![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 20:27:34
In reply to CRAZY T, posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 8:36:37
Posted by sleepygirl on July 28, 2005, at 21:36:05
In reply to CRAZY T, posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 8:36:37
yes
Posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 22:42:14
In reply to Re: :-) you made me chuckle lovingly., posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 17:53:51
although i'm not fully aware of EVERYTHING that went on, what i read B4 it disappeared????(why is that)-(or am i just a goof :-))?...is this----basically crazy t responded in a way towards another babbler that dr.bob found "uncivil" and she was asked 2 rephrase but didn't b/c, and i'm just assuming, that she held to her belief of the post.SKIP,HOP,BIGGG JUMP-then(and i'm not sure of the order) she saw an email a co-worker or friend? of her hubby's sent that (assuming again)showed an American soldier being drug behind a truck and as it cont. appeared to be a video of 1 of the US soldiers being beheaded??(not 100% sure)-that's when she got a PBC??????? I disagree w/ that but that's neither here nor there.she was VERY upset over what was sent and REGARDLESS of what origin,ethniticity,religion,etc....that this "human being" was, she needed to express the hurt and devastation this must have caused her(as it would most)and she wanted our support-that's why we're here right? OK-then it appears??? that when crazy t responded to dr.bob RE:another babbler,she stated that she would no longer associate herself w/ them...BLOCKED!???? i do not know how accurate i am on exactly what and especially the order of what happened. that is the basics. the only reason i realized crazy t was blocked was b/c i replied to her post of "what is ur worst fear" and i began 2 get worried about her b/c i had not seen her name and i always skim over her comments b/c she cracks me up even when i'm bummed. i only saw the *1* post between her and dr.bob and then the block and it upset me.i did not and still don't think it was justified. that's only my opinion and we are all entitled to that within limits. i didn't realize that this would cause such a hhmmmmm "discussion"?-but i sure hope that if i were to get blocked and it appeared wrong to ya'll that u would do the same. sorry this went on 4ever so i'll go now-take care Carolina
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 23:01:36
In reply to geez » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 28, 2005, at 15:27:47
> > I am of the opinion that he may not want to be my friend.
>
> I AM SHOCKED AND DO NOT SEE WHAT SHE SAID THAT CONSTITUES A BLOCK????I was afraid that could lead him to feel accused of being unfriendly.
> i was going on her resonse at the top that she would just no longer speak to Lou,etc...everyone is entitled to their own opinion
>
> CarolinaThe idea here is not to post opinions like that even if they're directed to someone else. Everyone's entitled to have their opinion, but not necessarily to post it. Freedom of speech is limited here.
--
> > I don't give a rat's *ss what you're fighting for, what your political background is, who your god is, or what you've done. That's just f*cking WRONG.
>
> it's uncivil to say it's wrong to kill people on this site? i'm floored.
>
> crushedoutI was afraid that could lead others to feel what they were fighting for, what their political background was, who their god was, or what they'd done didn't matter.
Bob
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 23:19:04
In reply to Re: geez, posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 23:01:36
> I was afraid that could lead others to feel what they were fighting for, what their political background was, who their god was, or what they'd done didn't matter.
>
> BobYou don't allow racist screen names here which does infer that there are limits to what can be considered acceptable behaviour.
Crazy T was saying that no matter what your cause that sort of violence is wrong.If I wrote:
It makes no difference what you are fighting for, torturing another human being is wrong, it's not acceptable, for any reason.
It's essentially what Crazy T was saying, would you really give me a P.B.C?
Posted by crushedout on July 28, 2005, at 23:23:16
In reply to Re: geez, posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 23:01:36
> > > I don't give a rat's *ss what you're fighting for, what your political background is, who your god is, or what you've done. That's just f*cking WRONG.
> >
> > it's uncivil to say it's wrong to kill people on this site? i'm floored.
> >
> > crushedout
>
> I was afraid that could lead others to feel what they were fighting for, what their political background was, who their god was, or what they'd done didn't matter.hmm, well that's not what that means. that clearly means that regardless of what your reasons are, she doesn't think you should drag or behead people. she was using strong language, but it seems warranted given the circumstances.
anyway, i'm sure i can't convince you that you're wrong so i don't know why i'm bothering.
Posted by crushedout on July 28, 2005, at 23:25:44
In reply to Dr. Bob? » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 23:19:04
> It makes no difference what you are fighting for, torturing another human being is wrong, it's not acceptable, for any reason.
>
> It's essentially what Crazy T was saying, would you really give me a P.B.C?of course he wouldn't.
Posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 23:45:03
In reply to Dr. Bob? » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 23:19:04
hey Dr. Bob-didn't expect to create an uproar but i still believe that the block on crazy t wasn't justified under FAQ and other rules...i agree w/ crushedout and gabbii. also, the way u take certain quotes out of posts can be extremely misleading. my comments were not expressed in my entire post the way they look if posted alone. i am a VERY supportive babbler towards every1 and i try 2 not be negative. i am a very outspoken person and still feel that you are in the wrong under your own rules 4 blocking crazy t. i hope u reread the entire post to see that she was expressing that she felt that violence and death towards another was wrong. i saw the implication of strong language w/*'S but i see that every day on posts. my main question that i am confused about is, why was crazy t blocked after responding to you personally that she would no longer associate herself w/ another babbler to keep from making statements that upset this fellow babbler??? and she didn't...i'm not trying to offend you in any way but i hope you think about this and hopefully change ur mind-(even the most brilliant people make errors) :-D...i do believe that this was one. i've spoken my mind on this, hopefully in an acceptable way and have stated my points RE: this so i'm done. PS- crazy t does a LOT of good for MANY babblers and she can be an excellent support system. just wanted u to know...thanx-carolina
Posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 23:51:13
In reply to Re: geez » Dr. Bob, posted by crushedout on July 28, 2005, at 23:23:16
this was a quote and c t was only asking 4 support after hearing this. she did not condone it, she was appalled by it. she only asked for support after seeing something as awful as a human life being taken regardless of what country these people were from. what if this had been discussed on "politics babble"? would that be acceptable? i'm new so i honestly don't know.
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 23:58:27
In reply to Re: geez/ crazy t » crushedout, posted by Carolina on July 28, 2005, at 23:51:13
>
I think it was on Babble Politics actually.
I could be confused though. I don't read the faith board, and I did see her post before it was brought to my attention here.
Posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 0:54:36
In reply to Reality Check!, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 16:51:15
hi gabbii,
I agree with you...it IS kind of like The Trial. (Or The Castle, in the distanced-from-reality kind of way.) Or like most of Kafka!Since Theresa's statement wasn't directed at any particular individual, but just a rant to the general public, I don't think it warranted a PBC. Even though it was strongly worded, I don't feel it's offensive to any religions or other groups.
Are we to assume that there might be a group out there that is very pro-arm-cutting-off-and-truck-dragging-and-beheading, and they might be offended to hear that their actions offend someone? To me, that is taking civility too far!
JenStar
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 1:16:04
In reply to Re: geez/ crazy t » Carolina, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 23:58:27
hey gabbii-u know, thats a cool name...:-D (my real name is abbey and gabby was my nickname) anyway...i know that the very 1st post that prompted me to reply to administration was on the Faith babble. after bunches of confusion, i was directed to another forum by 1 of the above babblers i think. im just really sleepy w/ a lot on my mind so 4give me if i dont make much sense! i just look at it like this; we saw something we didn't all agree w/ and spoke up and that's all we can do.take care-carolina
Posted by Nikkit2 on July 29, 2005, at 3:20:49
In reply to Re: geez/ crazy t, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 1:16:04
That its fine to say that murder / torture etc is bad, but its not OK to call *anyone* by an abusive name.. how ever much you might think they are worth calling by that name
It can be very difficult to answer some of Lou Pilder's faith questions, as the answers are often going to be classed as uncivil - for example, if LP asked "Can only those that love Jesus be saved", and someone answered "yes", that would be against the civility rules, as its saying that someone who doesn't believe in Jesus will die come the apocolypse.. It *may* be a tenent of your faith, but its because not everyone here is of the same faith.
So, even though it seems incredibly unfair, and I can't explain within the civility guidelines why it is unfair to me, it is a rule here.
Nikki trying very hard to keep this within the guidelines!
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:25:27
In reply to Re: geez, posted by Dr. Bob on July 28, 2005, at 23:01:36
I think you might have read that a bit quickly, Dr. Bob. Understandable, with all the posts you have to read.
I think she was saying just the opposite of putting any group of people down. She appeared talking about a particular behavior, not a belief system, and I see no where where she says any particular group was in favor of such a behavior. Well, other than people who use extreme violence. In fact, making the leap from people who use extreme violence to any one group (which is what it might be taken that your PBC did) is a bit offensive itself, you know. Not that I'm saying you did that. I'm guessing it was just the time pressures involved.
It has nothing to do with the block of course, but I think you ought to rescind the PBC.
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
In reply to I think.., posted by Nikkit2 on July 29, 2005, at 3:20:49
hey Nikkit2- i read ur post and was a bit lost on ur statement RE: calling som1 a bad name?? as i said earlier, i'm not 100% sure what exactly went on and in what order so wld u please let me know what i missed. i read over things quickly and prob. missed some things or they may have been removed B4 i saw them? i'm somewhat new so i don't know exactly how things work-thanx :-D
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 10:58:45
In reply to Re: I think.. » Nikkit2, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
>
I agree with what you had to Say Nikki in principal, but in this case she didn't call anyone an abusive name, those words weren't directed at anyone.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 11:00:01
In reply to Re: I think.. » Nikkit2, posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 6:41:58
This is the post that led to the please rephrase
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/533058.html
> E. If a person does not believe in Jesus, could they be a "believer"?
The word itself is not reserved specifically for reference to Jesus. Conceivably you could believe in anything. In the context of this thread, the answer would be no.
> F. Could a person not believe in Jesus and be saved?
No.
> G. Can a person not believe in Jesus and be {saved by Jesus}
No.
> H. Can a person be saved and be a nonbeliever?
No.
==========================================
I think asking for a rephrase *was* in order
Here's the request:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/533614.html
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 11:03:15
In reply to Re: Whoa - Dr. Bob said rephrase this, posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 11:00:01
After she rephrased and added how she felt about Lou. The please rephrase and content really didn't have anyhing to do with her block, at least not that Bob specified.
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
In reply to she was blocked. » AuntieMel, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 11:03:15
anyway, i think we're more talking about the pbc, or maybe there are two threads to this thread.the pbc, separate from the block, was clearly unwarranted.
Posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 14:35:52
In reply to Re: Reality Check! » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 0:54:36
> hi gabbii,
> I agree with you...it IS kind of like The Trial. (Or The Castle, in the distanced-from-reality kind of way.) Or like most of Kafka!
>Yeah, the man had a way of leaving you gasping for air didn't he?
Maybe I'll write my own thoughts.
"Asterisks of Outrage--life with Dr. Bob and the errant P.B.C"
(That would be a joke in case y'áll weren't sure)
> Since Theresa's statement wasn't directed at any particular individual, but just a rant to the general public, I don't think it warranted a PBC. Even though it was strongly worded, I don't feel it's offensive to any religions or other groups.
>Well, I can only imagine, if I'd just witnessed something so horrifying and sickening, something someone had sent me IN AN E-MAIL I d on't think any words would be strong enough, and it's especially understandable if you're needing to talk about it, and so posting about it right away. I mean, just reading about those things is horrifying.
I think Dr. Bob did focus on the "I don't care" and took at as her brushing off other peoples beliefs, but that's not what she meant. And depending on how involved I was with Babble at the moment, I think getting a slap when I'm that justifiably upset could be very hurtful.
> Are we to assume that there might be a group out there that is very pro-arm-cutting-off-and-truck-dragging-and-beheading, and they might be offended to hear that their actions offend someone? To me, that is taking civility too far!
>
> JenStar
>
>
Posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 14:39:01
In reply to Re: Reality Check! » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 29, 2005, at 14:35:52
> "Asterisks of Outrage--life with Dr. Bob and the errant P.B.C"that's hilarious. :-D
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:45:27
In reply to Re: she was blocked. » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
yes there are two threads and AuntieMel,i still don't see even after reading the thread u provided why it was a problem...As i said earlier, the >>>>> marks throw me off a bit as 2 who said what and who replied-i'm still learning :-) and the reason i asked Nikket2 what bad word was used was b/c the post that i read didn't appear to be against any particular person. i still do not agree w/ the block which occurred AFTER the PBC so it is still not justified...if there had been no PBC then the response from c t to dr. bob would not have resulted in the block and even if i felt the PBC was a valid one-(which i dont), the response from c t to dr. bob did not appear in any way to be against policy...??? i am new though so i could be misunderstanding although i don't see how. i still feel this block was wrong but am open to any input others feel may help me to see it from dr.bobs view.. thanx-carolina
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:46:39
In reply to Re: she was blocked. » gabbii, posted by crushedout on July 29, 2005, at 11:13:30
I think there are two threads.
She was asked to be civil on the thread you are talking about - and that was the end of it.
What she was talking about in the email was horrific to be sure. I think I probably would have reacted the same way.
The block came after the rephrase request I linked to. On a *totally* different thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050510/msgs/534009.html
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:57:21
In reply to Re: she was blocked., posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:45:27
In the bits I posted, the >>>> was from a post by Lou and the "No." was the post by ct.
So to break it down
Lou said: "F. Could a person not believe in Jesus and be saved?"
ct answered "No."
The faith board rules state that posters aren't allowed to put down another person's beliefs. Or to word things as if "my way is right." But anyway, that's why she was asked to rephrase it.
The rules would have allowed "We are taught in our faith that this is the only way to be saved."
Posted by Carolina on July 29, 2005, at 14:59:16
In reply to Re: the reasoning » Carolina, posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 14:57:21
thank you-that makes more sense!take care- carolina
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.