Shown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crazy teresa on October 29, 2005, at 11:35:47
Jakeman did not deserve his block on the political board. History has frequently proven his statement true as do current events every day.
I would like to see a loosening up on broad statements such a Jakeman's (and mine on the dragging by the arms behind a Jeep, decapitating terrorists) and concentrate on specific incivilities which might be truly offensive.
I doubt too many terrorists or politians frequent babble, however, if one should, what would be wrong with letting him know killing and lying (and/or screwing taxpayers out of money, or incorrupt behavior in general) is not a good idea? How does this differ from my telling a poster directly to terminate a seemingly abusive relationship? Would the abuser not find this uncivil of me? The cessation of any of these mentioned behaviors ultimately benefits society; is Jakeman's block in fact, a case of reverse descrimination towards a poster by the bobster?
Blocking Jakeman for what he said is not providing him with support and encouragement, neither is forced political correctness. In the back and forth of conversation without his block, Jakeman could have conceivably been educated civily by a poster holding a differing opinion (should one exist.)
I beseech you to rescind the blockage of Jakeman on the gounds that I find the use of reverse descrimination against him, in itself, uncivil, unjust, unfair, undeserved, and unflattering.
The defense rests.
*Diclaimer*
Merriam-Webster is not working for me. Counsel provided pro bono, without solicitation. Adverse effects could include vomiting, sporadic twitching of the left eyebrow and permanent constipation.
Posted by ClearSkies on October 29, 2005, at 14:21:04
In reply to Come on, bobster!, posted by crazy teresa on October 29, 2005, at 11:35:47
CT, we aren't free to say whatever we want here, the FAQs are abundantly clear. A PBC is ample warning that a block is the next consequence. The challenge to us as posters is to not offend others with possibly differing points of view.
I think the rules need to be adhered to, that we can express ourselves amply within the guidelines, and that most of Dr Bob's blocks are justified.
Posted by crazy teresa on October 30, 2005, at 0:19:35
In reply to Re: Come on, bobster! » crazy teresa, posted by ClearSkies on October 29, 2005, at 14:21:04
Posted by gardenergirl on October 30, 2005, at 1:59:46
In reply to He wasn't uncivil, and I wasn't addressing you. (nm) » ClearSkies, posted by crazy teresa on October 30, 2005, at 0:19:35
According to Dr. Bob, the post was considered uncivil. And anyone is free to reply to anyone else on this board, unless a Do Not Post is in place. ClearSkies certainly has that right as well.
gg
Posted by ClearSkies on October 30, 2005, at 6:19:54
In reply to He wasn't uncivil, and I wasn't addressing you. (nm) » ClearSkies, posted by crazy teresa on October 30, 2005, at 0:19:35
Please Do Not post to me in future.
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2005, at 8:23:56
In reply to He wasn't uncivil, and I wasn't addressing you. (nm) » ClearSkies, posted by crazy teresa on October 30, 2005, at 0:19:35
If you want a private conversation with Dr Bob, maybe you could email him instead of posting to him here?
When you post on this board, everyone who has an opinion, such as ClearSkies, can and will express it. They may agree or disagree, but they surely have a right to comment on your post. IMO that's the whole idea of the admin board - to *discuss* admin issues.
Take care.
emmy
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2005, at 8:28:33
In reply to Re: He wasn't uncivil, and I wasn't addressing you. » crazy teresa, posted by TofuEmmy on October 30, 2005, at 8:23:56
This is the end of the 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.