![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 73. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 22:24:01
In reply to Re: Re war and meall » lil' jimi, posted by justyourlaugh on April 17, 2003, at 22:07:54
Different people just have different ideas about how to go about getting it.
Did Chamberlain gain peace when Hitler chased him around the table?
Is lack of war the same as peace?
Peace at all costs?
Continuing the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people was better than ending a brutal dictatorship? Yeah, how about another ten years of oil for food? Not to mention torture and oppression.
No easy answers.
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 0:02:29
In reply to Re: Re war and meall » lil' jimi, posted by justyourlaugh on April 17, 2003, at 22:07:54
> good jimi,
> this is a social format..
> we should be expressive..angry..offended..turned on..pissed off....
> need i say more..
> all my sunshine and lollipops are used up..
> so tired of being passive
> peace-real peace
> jjust,
i wanted to cram all this into the subject line, to be discreet .... wouldn't fit .... tony's message awaken me...your's too .... no, you needn't say more ...... your silence speaks ... .. swears ... i'd miss your sunshine .... fire, lightning ... get some rest ... long days ahead.
i can be social.
listening for jyl,
~ jimi
p.s. anger, .... bold as love....
Posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 0:05:29
In reply to Re: Win without War (very long), posted by justyourlaugh on April 17, 2003, at 17:54:35
I have always liked Tim Robbins since seeing him in the Shawshank Redemption and for awhile he was probably my favorite actor.
We saw him one day in Santa Monica at a skateboard shop with his son. I was so shocked at how tall he is (out of curiosity I just looked it up - 6' 5" tall).
I forgot about that movie Jacobs Ladder until you just mentioned it, JYL.
As a semi-addict to conspiracy theory websites (much to my husband's chagrin) I agree with you totally JYL: "it's not what it seems . . . never has been."
My husband has been known to say the following: "I love my country but I don't necessarily trust my government." In fact, I just told my husband at dinner that I've probably never been as confused politically (and perhaps in a lot of other ways as well :) than I am right now.
HOWEVER, I love my country and support our troops 110% - and I watch Fox News, listen to AM radio in the car and read controversial conspiracy theory websites just so I can keep myself totally off-guard ;)
I like to keep myself guessing because what other choice do we really have?
Posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 0:16:01
In reply to Re: Re war and meall » lostsailor, posted by lil' jimi on April 17, 2003, at 21:55:24
> it is when i think that one view is being surpressed that, i feel, a disservice is being done to our prespective on the issues ..... and i feel there are those who would be happier if they could hear only one voice ... as long as they may choose that voice.... i think we can see where that might be comfortable,... But, i think, we can see where that can cause a bigger problem, .. ..bigger problems.
justyourlaugh,
I absolutely agree. It's a vice of both sides unfortunately.
> we are challenged to be civil here.... may we discuss whether or not i have been civil by bringing up politics as a subject for consideration? .... and is politics even the issue mr. robbins expresses, so much as the issue of free speech? .... even if the issue is "just" politics, am i being so uncivil here?I personally don't think that bringing up the subject of politics in uncivil. I do think that before this thread is over it will end up in other people being uncivil. And I think that's sad. And yes, I thought he was mostly talking about free speech too.
> i would want to be civil and therefore, i apologize to anyone who i may have offended ... but would it be uncivil to expect the sensitive to, or to ask the more sensitive to ..... avert their eyes that i might not offend them ?
I'm a big fan of "just don't read it" if you don't like it.
> i would only hope that i might be allowed to ask that for those who would want to accept the challenge of opening this sort of discussion that we all engage with clear minds and open hearts each other's visions, that we might better understand .... each other, if not neccessarily the issue(s).
> ... if that is too much to expect and the powers-that-be deign this uncivil of me, then i shall fold my tent and vanish in to the night of silence .... and i will be okay.... even if it were offensive to my sensibilities.I don't think you need to worry about the "powers that be". And I hope you can get the kind of discussion that you are looking for. But the recent threads don't make me optimistic about it. I also worry that when you have these discussions with people with whom you have not already established a strong relationship that you don't end up knowing them better - but less well. Good luck.
Jane
Posted by lostsailor on April 18, 2003, at 0:34:03
In reply to Re: Re war and meall » lostsailor, posted by lil' jimi on April 17, 2003, at 21:55:24
Hmmm.
Wow, bud.
I don't know what to say. I love the music you seem to. does that speak to you at all? Does that mean nothing? was it a movement or a musical mayhem? Some of the best bands of the era choose to say nothing and others too much.
All are welcome to talk here. What I meant is I am to confused to really sort it out. be it jfk, rfk, "star wars" "'holy ‘" wars...I just have had loud voice in the past and offended others without intention. Like being beaten by a group of African Americans whole protesting the rk verdict. Is it him that may have said it bes: “why can’t we all just get along”
an older friend of mine did a lot of time "in country" in nam and for what??? to be pelted with things when he got home; to have people see him a fascist killer, a thug and murderer. he was young with a future. he was drafted. he now has ptsd. he has many medical probs associated with agent orange and came home with a poppy habit to boot. he kicked, but still can't forget --they were soldiers. They killed to stay alive. Killed and he and other can’t forget it—ever go to the wall in dc??. he saw innocent women, children and men killed. he saw soldiers kill their superiors.
Two of my uncles served in korea and came home to a hero's welcome and were not drafted--i don't believe.
I saw the post gulf war chapter 1 c soldiers come home to that same hero's welcome to suffer from gulf war syndrome and be told it does not exist.
i seem to see a lot and say little.
the soldiers are bold as love (wink) and the politicians--well no comment, except for 2 (lol):
bc got a bj and that was "terrible";
jc looked for alternative sources of power only to have the sad hostage crisis in '80 be "solved by reagan --who now does not remember--and that may be better for him to pass and not remember. would we all like not to remember evil doings and atrocities.
bill won one for the zipper, while ron the gipper...
i am lost.
i love others speaking hear about ANYTHING here. it just, for me, seems safer to stay lost yet informed. that’s why I read many of the posts.
i don't know if you follow me, but nor do i.
i mean i can't even see my non-bio son you and I talked about, which I am still gracious for, on his birthday unless I, what, marry his mom. and i HAD to promise not to leave him.
i don't really sail, but i have been too long at sea. i hear the shoreline beckon: there is a price for being free.
i hope this helps. honest, but i think you know that already
god bless, my friend,
~tony
feel free to post for me
Posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 0:45:17
In reply to Re: Politics not in itselt uncivil IMHO » lil' jimi, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 0:16:01
I agree. Some topics can be real button-pushers.
Because I'm so wishy washy I can usually identify with both sides (or at least a few components of each argument) on almost everything.
If I do find myself starting to get irritated (not something that's happened since reading here on psycho-babble) I try my best to put the thread, the poster, or the post on "ignore" - which means (for me) that I observe the words but try not to react to them. In Buddhism I think they refer to something similar as detachment but for me it's just a survival mechanism to steer clear of cortisol (a.k.a. a feeble attempt to preserve that area once known as my waistline).
SO, I totally agree with your practice: "I'm a big fan of 'just don't read it' if you don't like it."
Additionally, I read this portion of your post (copied and pasted below) a couple of times and although I had never thought of it this way I think you make a very valuable point. The ice can get thin before you know it with these discussions.
"I also worry that when you have these discussions with people with whom you have not already established a strong relationship that you don't end up knowing them better - but less well."
Posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 1:05:54
In reply to Re: Re war et al--lil' james marshel l, posted by lostsailor on April 18, 2003, at 0:34:03
What a line:
bill won one for the zipper, while ron the gipper...
I can only hope my husband is still awake when I go upstairs so I can repeat this to him. We had a lengthy discussion over dinner about Bill Clinton so your remark is particularly timely.
Lostsailor, I am lost as well. I want to believe that all is well but I know it isn't. Or is it?
I've read one "essay" since the war started (on another message board) that really made me feel better (momentarily) about everything. I'm going to copy and paste it here with the caveat that it's just a copy and paste! Not meant to be controversial in the least. Somehow, it gave me a measure of hope.
The words "man/men" could have been replaced with "people/human/mankind" but I am not the author so I won't toy with (or criticize) his words, which are (IMHO), for the most part, profound. Oh yeah, some of the expressions in this guy's essay are taken from other speeches (I had to do a little research the day I read it).
EVERY ACT OF MAN IS GOOD FOR MAN.THE EXPERIENCES OF FEAR, ANGER, HATE, CHAOS, PAIN–ALL SUFFERING–AND DEATH, ARE GOOD FOR MAN. THE WORLD, AS IT IS, IS PERFECT FOR MAN, AND ALL THINGS ARE WORKING EXACTLY AS THEY MUST FOR THE GOOD OF MAN. NOTHING WRONG.
Consider life:
Every choice has a consequence; every consequence teaches a lesson; every lesson learned takes man closer to the reason he IS: "Man IS that he might have joy," or, using other words: This truth is self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with the desire to be happy.
So why aren't men happy all the time? Because men make choices that don't result in happiness.
The bad choices men make prove they need the consequences--the lessons that result from the choices. And the events that result from decisions, is evidence they need the lessons.
Life is a school, and the purpose of life is fulfilled in the living.
Men ARE that they might have joy, and when men learn to choose the things the bring joy, and avoid the things that bring sorrow, then are men perfect in the sphere they inhabit, and the purpose of life–gaining the wisdom needed to be happy – is fulfilled.
These are indeed the times that try men's souls–but not these times only – it is man's history. No age is exempt from trials, pain and tears, for this is a world of tears, and all men play their part, the angry, the happy, the ignorant, the wise, those that seek honor, power, wealth and glory at the expense of others, those that are content, and those that seek to serve unselfishly, yes, every nation, every people, every person fulfills the purposes of life – "all for one, and one for all."
In this world we spend a few years and then depart. Some say we come many times, others say we come but once, but what matters it, we know the life we live, and it has an end, and how we spent our time is judged by others as good or bad, but if the truth were known, IT IS ALL GOOD.
If we would – and we can – see into eternity, know the past, present and future of man, then our judgements would be wise, but many choose to be imprisoned in the matrix, judge in an instant, and thus they and we create our world, yet it fulfills the purposes of He who sees into eternity, and knows all things are good.
IF WE REALLY BELIEVED AND TRUSTED IN GOD, TRUSTED HIS PURPOSES FOR MAN, then we would TRULY be at peace in these troubled times. That's my point: Trust the plan of He who created all things, just flat-out trust Him, because to do less, while we know less, is the cause of our fears, our anguish and our tears – yet . . . even THAT, is good – for through fear we learn to trust; by anguish we gain knowledge; and in tears, we cleanse the soul and awaken to a new dawn of hope.
Where is the man of one-hundred years ago? His body is earth again, and his eternal being is not here. If he were to visit you and speak to you of things eternal, you would know that all things are perfect, going as they must -- fulfilling life's purposes.
Men suffer, and by suffering learn wisdom. The world is chaos, and by chaos men learn to cherish order. The world is at war, and by war men learn to cherish peace. Men are slaves, and by slavery men learn to value freedom. Men live and die, and by living they learn of death, and by dying they learn to live.
Life is one eternal round of progression for eternal spirits that are in the school of mortality – a dark and light world of opposites that teach man all he needs to know to move beyond this reality and embrace his eternal future – and is the wiser for it.
Men need neither know the words here written, nor believe them, it matters not, for the plan works in spite of men's beliefs, YET, when a man believes, knows THESE truths, that life is perfect, is going as needed, is good -- then THAT man truly walks in peace in a world that has always been at war.
The trials and tribulations that are inherent in living are not inconsequential, are not sideshows, are not accidents, but are absolutely necessary, the main show, the purpose of life.
Today we are here and tomorrow we are gone, and in all this, life's purposes are fulfilled, and it is good, AND, if you will TRUST GOD, you will walk this world in peace, even as the world marches to war.
-----------------------------Nemesis lives in a small "cabin" without electricity or running water–1800's style–in the western hills on the Nevada/Utah border, and will soon have a book available called: "DON'T SPIT INTO THE WIND IF YOU DON'T WANT A SPIT BATH."
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 1:29:22
In reply to Re: Politics not in itselt uncivil IMHO » lil' jimi, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 0:16:01
hi jane,
i thank for your reply and i think its very sweet that you have such concern for the prospects for this thread!... now i am replying to you because of the subject line reference, and you quote me here .....
well, i wrote:
> > it is when i think that one view is being surpressed that, i feel, a disservice is being done to our prespective on the issues ..... and i feel there are those who would be happier if they could hear only one voice ... as long as they may choose that voice.... i think we can see where that might be comfortable,... But, i think, we can see where that can cause a bigger problem, .. ..bigger problems.... but then you address jyl, so maybe you were writing to jyl? ...
>
> justyourlaugh,
>
> I absolutely agree. It's a vice of both sides unfortunately.
>
and you agree with me about surpression of views, but emphasize its multi-sided application ....anyway it's followed by more of my message here :
> > we are challenged to be civil here.... may we discuss whether or not i have been civil by bringing up politics as a subject for consideration? .... and is politics even the issue mr. robbins expresses, so much as the issue of free speech? .... even if the issue is "just" politics, am i being so uncivil here?
>and you reply to me:
> I personally don't think that bringing up the subject of politics in uncivil. I do think that before this thread is over it will end up in other people being uncivil. And I think that's sad. And yes, I thought he was mostly talking about free speech too.
>
you very thoughtfully warn be about possible civil unrest, but agree that mr. robbins wasn't expressing a particular stand on any issues , as much as he was describing the challenges he had experienced exercising his rights ... i do appreciate your alerting me in the first place, but do i have you right about the free speech there?> > i would want to be civil and therefore, i apologize to anyone who i may have offended ... but would it be uncivil to expect the sensitive to, or to ask the more sensitive to ..... avert their eyes that i might not offend them ?
>
> I'm a big fan of "just don't read it" if you don't like it.
>and you give a very nice endorsement to self-censorship for the offended ..... thank you...
here is some more of what i wrote:
> > i would only hope that i might be allowed to ask that for those who would want to accept the challenge of opening this sort of discussion that we all engage with clear minds and open hearts each other's visions, that we might better understand .... each other, if not neccessarily the issue(s).
> > ... if that is too much to expect and the powers-that-be deign this uncivil of me, then i shall fold my tent and vanish in to the night of silence .... and i will be okay.... even if it were offensive to my sensibilities.and your response:
>
> I don't think you need to worry about the "powers that be". And I hope you can get the kind of discussion that you are looking for.i hope so, and, great!
...> But the recent threads don't make me optimistic about it.
okay :( ..... got any urls to these recent threads ... i should try to be better informed about such tragic history.
...> I also worry that when you have these discussions with people with whom you have not already established a strong relationship that you don't end up knowing them better - but less well.
way serious bummer ..... a major draw back .... and to me an unacceptably high price, should this become .... well, that would be my standard for failure here ....
> Good luck.
>
> Janethanks ... i appreciate your support and encouragement ..... and warnings.
being rude and insulting and demeening is so easy ... there's no sport in it .... it takes strength to be civil and kind ... it takes big strong neurotransmitters to be caring and thoughtful of other's feelings and empathetic and compassionate ..... there's the real challenge.
even though we may disagree, for me to be disagreeable means i have capitulated ....
i should have better resources for making my case and i unmake my case otherwise, so ...... let's just be civil .. ... .. okay?civilly,
~ jim
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 7:02:05
In reply to Re: Re war et al--lil' james marshel l, posted by lostsailor on April 18, 2003, at 0:34:03
The closest thing to a politician I could admire on a national level in my lifetime. No wait, I did admire him. Wholeheartedly.
I love the James Tiberius Kirk school of management. You surround yourself with the best people you can find, set the overriding goal, and then stand back and let them do their jobs.
And I admired his goals as well. Wholeheartedly.
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 7:09:42
In reply to Re: Politics not in itselt uncivil IMHO, posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 1:29:22
My many stands on issues that will prove very unpopular here on babble. And that, for the sake of politeness, I have kept to myself.
However, I will state them very civilly.
I wonder if I can continue to be liked and respected here afterwards? Can you all like and respect people who feel differently than you on issues dear to your heart?
Racism is near and dear to my heart. And I have trouble feeling the same way about those who express racist views. I will express some views that you may find just as abhorrent, although they are perfectly mainstream and probably as widely accepted in society as the type of views expresssed more commonly on babble. Will you accept that I feel differently about those issues, and accept me anyway? Will you agree, in your heart, that good people can disagree about charged issues. Or will you feel differently about me, as I feel differently about those who express racist views.
Politics may be able to be discussed civilly. But will even civil discussions of things that people feel violently about disrupt the supportive nature of this board?
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 8:29:10
In reply to Re: Ronald Reagan was my hero, posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 7:02:05
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 9:40:06
In reply to Re: Re war et al--lil' james marshel l, posted by lostsailor on April 18, 2003, at 0:34:03
> Hmmm.
>
> Wow, bud.
>
> I don't know what to say. I love the music you seem to. does that speak to you at all? Does that mean nothing? was it a movement or a musical mayhem? Some of the best bands of the era choose to say nothing and others too much.
>
> All are welcome to talk here. What I meant is I am to confused to really sort it out. be it jfk, rfk, "star wars" "'holy ‘" wars...I just have had loud voice in the past and offended others without intention. Like being beaten by a group of African Americans whole protesting the rk verdict. Is it him that may have said it bes: “why can’t we all just get along”
>
> an older friend of mine did a lot of time "in country" in nam and for what??? to be pelted with things when he got home; to have people see him a fascist killer, a thug and murderer. he was young with a future. he was drafted. he now has ptsd. he has many medical probs associated with agent orange and came home with a poppy habit to boot. he kicked, but still can't forget --they were soldiers. They killed to stay alive. Killed and he and other can’t forget it—ever go to the wall in dc??. he saw innocent women, children and men killed. he saw soldiers kill their superiors.
>
> Two of my uncles served in korea and came home to a hero's welcome and were not drafted--i don't believe.
>
> I saw the post gulf war chapter 1 c soldiers come home to that same hero's welcome to suffer from gulf war syndrome and be told it does not exist.
>
> i seem to see a lot and say little.
>
> the soldiers are bold as love (wink) and the politicians--well no comment, except for 2 (lol):
>
> bc got a bj and that was "terrible";
>
> jc looked for alternative sources of power only to have the sad hostage crisis in '80 be "solved by reagan --who now does not remember--and that may be better for him to pass and not remember. would we all like not to remember evil doings and atrocities.
>
> bill won one for the zipper, while ron the gipper...
>
> i am lost.
>
> i love others speaking hear about ANYTHING here. it just, for me, seems safer to stay lost yet informed. that’s why I read many of the posts.
>
> i don't know if you follow me, but nor do i.
>
> i mean i can't even see my non-bio son you and I talked about, which I am still gracious for, on his birthday unless I, what, marry his mom. and i HAD to promise not to leave him.
>
> i don't really sail, but i have been too long at sea. i hear the shoreline beckon: there is a price for being free.
>
> i hope this helps. honest, but i think you know that already
>
> god bless, my friend,
>
> ~tony
>
> feel free to post for me
hey tony-o!my dad was sailor ... he almost always owned a boat when i was growing up ... a sail boat .... i never learned any sailing though .... avid sailor and air force colonel, too .... anyone want to mention the latest cut congress has inflicted on our veterans' benefits? ... the plight of those injured vets you know and their conrades ... i honor .... we honor.... we should honor them much better.... our country's treatment of our vets is a national disgrace ... check out http://www.vetsforjustice.com/
i recall and still feel for your non-bio-son issues .... separate and apart from these other things that's the tough one ....most on you .... hang tough.
and i do follow you ... you're easy .... even when it might not be the comfortable foot steps you're treading .... "... castles made of sand ... "
and, yea, verily, you are experienced .... at another level we are all sailors ... sailors on this sea of illusion ...
in the soviet police state, russians gave a traditional toast, with an extra meaning: hoisting their glasses they would say, "To those still at sea!" .... secretively referring to political prisoners in the soviet's gulags.
the Sea of Illusion is vast and subtle .... there are those who are lost, who know they are lost ..... and then there are those who are lost, who do Not know they are lost .... many are the later .... you are the former .... i could follow you... so i toast with you, lostsailor, "To Those Still at Sea!"
may your spirit be at peace,
~ jimi
"....'cuse me while i ..."
Posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 9:45:46
In reply to Re: Next post....., posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 7:09:42
Dinah, you had me at "hello." (Oh no, I'm quoting movie lines, where is IsoM?).
Okay, maybe you didn't have me at "hello," but you certainly had me somewhere immediately after that one mother thread a few weeks ago.
I speak from the bottom of my vomit-fearing heart when I say that you could probably have been the block-captain for Charles Manson's neighborhood (or Mister Roger's Neighborhood) and I would still think you're swell.
I voted for Ronand Reagan* twice and I used to be a card-carrying Republican. Then I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I shift my politics and views as often as I change underwear (that's daily - not every four years ;-)
One minute I'm applauding Rush Limbaugh and the next time I get on the computer I'm perusing RumorMillNews.
I abhor racism as well, but I also know that I love my father who, like so many of his generation, can be one of the biggest bigots walking. With racism, politics, etc. I find myself constantly trying to "understand where the person is coming from" (is that sixties or seventies talk?) and once I have a glimmer of their background I can understand them (and their views) much better. I may not agree with their views but I can at least try to accept the person.
I can only think of one time on any message board that I truly couldn't tolerate an individual and that was a member of the medical community who was using a message board (and many innocent people) to try to drum up business, and he was doing it by initally creating an atmosphere wherein people trusted him and almost revered him. I was sickened even more so when I was made privy to an email from a respected doctor who mentioned many of the procedures that he and others had corrected due to the inexperience of this opportunistic individual.
All that said, (TMI, I know) I just wanted to speak up and answer this question that wasn't even directed to me:
"Or will you feel differently about me, as I feel differently about those who express racist views."
The answer from me is "no," I won't feel differently about you.
I will detach myself (or more accurately, my ego) long before I allow anything to damage the immense respect I already have for you based on all the posts of yours that I've read in the last few weeks.
Now, try to sell me some snake oil or a bogus procedure that promises to make me look fifteen years younger and I may change my tune ;-)
*I've even visited his library and partook of the jelly beans.
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 10:00:45
In reply to Dinah, you had me at hello., posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 9:45:46
I do thank you.
But what if you hadn't already gotten to know me from my posts?
(By the way, I do have an exemption for older people and racism. Their world changed midstream on them, and not all were able to change a lifetime of attitudes. Compassion for them tempers whatever other feelings I might have.)
Posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 11:30:04
In reply to Re: In fact, I loved Ronald Reagan. (nm), posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 8:29:10
You see it does matter. I mean, I know that our friendship can withstand different political views (if they are that different) but taste in movies is a really serious thing! :)
Jane,
who probably has never actually seen a Reagan movie
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 11:31:19
In reply to Re: Next post....., posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 7:09:42
> My many stands on issues that will prove very unpopular here on babble. And that, for the sake of politeness, I have kept to myself.
>
> However, I will state them very civilly.
>
> I wonder if I can continue to be liked and respected here afterwards? Can you all like and respect people who feel differently than you on issues dear to your heart?
>
> Racism is near and dear to my heart. And I have trouble feeling the same way about those who express racist views. I will express some views that you may find just as abhorrent, although they are perfectly mainstream and probably as widely accepted in society as the type of views expresssed more commonly on babble. Will you accept that I feel differently about those issues, and accept me anyway? Will you agree, in your heart, that good people can disagree about charged issues. Or will you feel differently about me, as I feel differently about those who express racist views.
>
> Politics may be able to be discussed civilly. But will even civil discussions of things that people feel violently about disrupt the supportive nature of this board?hi dinah,
(i'm pronouncing it "Dye-nah" like Dinah Shore, or would you rather "Dee-nah"?)well, about these civility considerations (and of course, i can only speak for myself) .... you say any political thing(s) you want and i'll say any political thing(s) i want and i *promise* that Not Only will i be civil, but i will try to do you One better ..... i will try to be your friend ..... that's what i'd like, anyway ..... if you were game .... this offer has no expiration .... i do not really know you from your posts, but without other considerations, i believe we should be able to agree to disagree without being disagreeable ..... since you seem to be up for it ... i'm game .... and i can also promise to disagree with you ... and to occasionally be wrong ... but we have agreed about some important things already, like civility .... you and i might stand up for civility against the rude who would crudely intrude into this interlude .... (sorry!)...
you must judge the possible judgemental penalty from others as best you may .... i might only offer them my example, but it is all too easy to imagine that unpopular opinions may rankle and forment negative responses /reactions to you in the future ..... it is a non-trivial issue which you should choose carefully, because, if it were me, i'd worry real hard about changing my relation to these message boards.... they are very valuable to me.....so i will respect you for your decision regardless.
i promise i will offer much more in reply to your posts ....
however i shall have to ask for your indulgence for the nonce, as i must help close down the shop early here today .... and my wife keeps e-mailing me .... and i'm going to need a little more head space to feel comfortable to respond to your luscious provocation(s) in full, if i may prevail upon your patience, my dear madame, please?
your Friend,
~ jim aka "call anything you please, just don't call me late for dinner!"
Posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 11:31:34
In reply to Re: Politics not in itselt uncivil IMHO, posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 1:29:22
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 11:37:31
In reply to Re: Reagan the politician or Reagan the actor?. » Dinah, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 11:30:04
Posted by leeran on April 18, 2003, at 11:40:20
In reply to Re: Dinah, you had me at hello. » leeran, posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 10:00:45
"But what if you hadn't already gotten to know me from my posts?"
I don't think political views "make" the person, so I don't think I could mentally shut out someone just because of their politics (or for their religious views). That said, it wouldn't matter if it was post #1, or post #1001.
I like these types of questions because they offer an opportunity to really think about what does (and doesn't) push my buttons.
As I sit here scratching my head on this I think some of the behaviors that raise the figurative fur on my back are as follows:
1) Agendas, hidden or loosely veiled, that are designed to manipulate others into some type of behavior ("innocent" agendas are fine, i.e. for meetings, etc.)
2) Actions that endanger the lives of others.
3) Bullying. (BUT, as an adult I can better understand that bullying is often rooted in poor self-esteem).
4) Phoniness (unless my b.s. meter is all out of whack of whack hormonally, I haven't seen any of that here on these boards).
I went through two unpleasant divorces (what divorce IS pleasant?) and those two experiences used up a couple of lifetimes worth of ire. It's so much easier to try to get along than to prove myself right or “win.”
(Note, to anyone going through a divorce or about to go through a divorce I, unfortunately, recommend keeping at least some of your anger intact so that you won't ever feel like kicking your butt later for giving in because you were too weary to fight anymore)
In the years since the divorces (and leaving my seventeen year job with the same entity, which was almost like another divorce) I've let go of a lot of my anger toward other people. It’s the anger toward myself that eats at my insides. LOL, I just realized, I’m too damned selfish to judge anyone else, it might take away precious time from judging myself! Proving once again that some of the greatest love affairs only involve one person.
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 11:42:02
In reply to Re: Sorry to misattribute quotes (nm) » lil' jimi, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 11:31:34
Wasn't ever a problem... made for a little confusion, but it's very like what i might do ..... no harm done at all.
thanks,
~ j
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 15:35:54
In reply to Re: Reagan the politician or Reagan the actor?. » Dinah, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 11:30:04
You're good for me, Jane. :)
Reagan the politician of course. He was a way better president than he was an actor.
But surely if our friendship has flourished despite my fondness for Barry Manilow, it could withstand Ronald Reagan the actor. :))
Posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 20:28:10
In reply to Re: Reagan the politician or Reagan the actor?. » jane d, posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 15:35:54
> .... my fondness for Barry Manilow,
Dinah,
Have you posted over on the meds board about this? Somebody there may have some suggestions to help you with this. It's amazing what the right meds can do! I'd think something a little activating like Prozac or Lamictal. Perhaps clonazepam for any closet punk rockers hanging about and for the Deadheads.... Well, never mind about the Deadheads. They probably already have whatever they need. :)Jane
Now who was Barry Manilow?
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 21:55:32
In reply to Re: Reagan the politician or Reagan the actor?. » Dinah, posted by jane d on April 18, 2003, at 20:28:10
Posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 22:17:41
In reply to Re: Everyone wants peace - real peace » justyourlaugh, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2003, at 22:24:01
> Different people just have different ideas about how to go about getting it.
>
> Did Chamberlain gain peace when Hitler chased him around the table?
>
> Is lack of war the same as peace?
>
> Peace at all costs?
>
> Continuing the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people was better than ending a brutal dictatorship? Yeah, how about another ten years of oil for food? Not to mention torture and oppression.
>
> No easy answers.hi dinah,
how are you doing?
things are better for me now .... we got home okay.... i took my medication and then we all had a big nap.you know, justyourlaugh could have easily meant inner peace when she invoked "real peace" .... really decent arguments can be made that only with inner peace can any be real peace be achieved.... or jyl could have easily intended something more substantial, such as universal peace, which may be seen as either more "real", perhaps in some sense of more permanent, or perhaps as a form of ideal peace, although that may be less attainable.
but it doesn't matter .... because
...you have, in your post above, clearly implied that you have taken it as narrowily referring to peace in iraq ...
now, from my previous post, i said i want to uncloud my mind of my preconceptions (clear mind) and engage the personal affective aspect of your view (open heart) to appreciate you vision ... okay, my new friend?
the first thing my open heart seems to notice is that your message seems all ...mmmmm .... bristly-like ... besides being very abrupt .... it seems as if it is in response to some experiences which may have put you on the defensive?... maybe?
anywho, all that's just my measure of your offerings' more superficial style points and not really important, except as a beginning for me trying to engage your vision here.
so you want to talk about iraq, okay?... okay, but neither i nor jyl nor tim robbins' speech mentioned iraq, but if you, my friend, want to talk about iraq, then i'm going to open my heart to your vision ....so
"> Different people just have different ideas about how to go about getting it. "
okay! we can agree... although this should be classified as an inescapable truism, but i take it this is your statement supporting a diversity of views... and we agree about that too.
but from here things get more complicated for me ... your vision is not so clear to me here..... so i will be asking for some clarification(s), okay?
one the one hand we have your ww2 nazi germany analogy:
"> Did Chamberlain gain peace when Hitler chased him around the table?
> Is lack of war the same as peace?
> Peace at all costs?"
where we have your rhetorical questions to which the answers are all unequivocally, "no."yet on the opposite hand, we have:
"> Continuing the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people was better than ending a brutal dictatorship? Yeah, how about another ten years of oil for food? Not to mention torture and oppression."
referring to the pre-gulf war 2 situation in iraq...then
"> No easy answers."
... where i don't think you really intend to be describing my reaction to your offerings, but that's how it strikes me..... however, allowing myself to extrapolate, my sense of this is, ....that it is to dismiss the possibility of solution immediacy.... which doesn't seem unreasonable....okay, please try to help me out here:
in your ww2 analogy, aren't you emphasizing the historical failure of appeasement against an intractable enemy, as in, "No giving in! No lettin' 'em off!";whereas, in your reference to the pre-iraq war situation you attack the un sanctions, and by extension the entire regime of international punitive efforts against iraq for gulf war 1.
so i'm getting a double vision of your view because we can either condemn whatever appeasement it is that you are denouncing or you may condemn the punishment the internationally imposed sanctions: do you feel we were being too hard on iraq with the sanctions Or were they getting off too lightly, ala some sweet-heart deal with some bambozzled neville chamberlian-like baffoon?
can you see that my problem here is that the combination of
defeat in gulf war 1;
food-for-oil;
no-fly zones with regular air strikes;
the weapon inspections;
nation-wide u-2 overflights;
along with the other international sanctions seem to be the opposite of appeasement?and another serious problem, for me, here, is the entire ww2 analogy: although hitler was a bad guy and saddam hussein was/is a bad guy, the parallels between pre-gulf war 2 iraq and our situation with nazi germany before entered ww2 are very thin.
germany had a series of unrelieved successes dominating europe with its fully operational war machine against no effective opposition.
iraq's military was seriously degraded by gulf war 1, had all of the above listed encumberances to re-building its capabilities, while 2/3 of the country had nato overflights and un inspectors searched for any signs of weapons development...
so the pre-gulf war 2 iraq does not make out as the implacable unrestrained nazi germany analog by any reasonable stretch... and as far as i recall there was no neville chamberlain coming to them to seek accommodation either .... unless we were to count bush 1's ending of gulf war 1
i'd ask if abandoning the ww2 analogy isn't for the best?
of course it hasn't been in dispute that mr. hussien regime was a brutal dictatorship, but that has not been any different than when we put him into power in the 70s, thank you donald rumsfeld and the bush 1 team..... and being a brutal dictatorship hasn't been sufficient cause for us to go to war until recently ... we have installed and supported brutal dictatorships more often than not, iran, indonesia, chile, guatemala come to mind... and if changing our past bad behavior was a goal then there should be consideration for the brutal dictatorships which pose more formidable threats to world peace, which iraq scarcely was, such as china or .... saudi arabia ...
so despite my attempts i have failed to engage the vision you have offered.... i apologize
would help me clear up these confusions, please?
your civil friend,
~ jim
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2003, at 23:02:36
In reply to Re: Everyone wants real peace » Dinah, posted by lil' jimi on April 18, 2003, at 22:17:41
>
> would help me clear up these confusions, please?
>
> your civil friend,
> ~ jimSorry, Jim. But my point was that this is a place I go to maintain relationships. The only place really that I have to do that.
I wasn't throwing down the gauntlet, or challenging you to a debate.
I wasn't intending to be bristly with JYL either. I'm just so tired of having to defend those things that are important to me, and I can't not do it.
I know you'll say that I should just not read.
I tend to think that I don't belong here or anywhere else. I can't do this sort of thing. It upsets me too much.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.