![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:51
zeugma, i personally see NOTHING wrong w/ the editorial you posted and i disagree w/ your block. i wish you had my email but will have to wait to talk w/ ya. i get offended at support bush threads so my question is why is it one sided, especially since it was an editorial....if it is okay to discuss support for Bush, why is it not okay to discuss support for a government that ran differently? i hope i worded that within the lines ;o(
Posted by sleepygirl on March 11, 2006, at 13:44:04
In reply to yet another block on politics???? (((zeugma))), posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:51
it's way to hard to discuss the climate of the times and be "civil"
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 15:26:51
In reply to yet another block on politics???? (((zeugma))), posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:51
> if it is okay to discuss support for Bush, why is it not okay to discuss support for a government that ran differently?
That's OK, too, and Dee just did a nice job of doing so...
Bob
Posted by madeline on March 11, 2006, at 15:27:41
In reply to yet another block on politics???? (((zeugma))), posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:51
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2006, at 17:23:37
In reply to The politics board always been that contentious? (nm), posted by madeline on March 11, 2006, at 15:27:41
U.S. presidential campaign/election '04.
{shudder}
Regular and firm enforcement of the civility rules, applied in the same way as on any other board, has helped a great deal and made it possible for me to participate at all. Not that I'm saying Dr. Bob didn't apply civility rules back then. No doubt he did. But I either don't recall (two years ago is a looong time for my porous memory), or I don't know, because the first few times I dared to read, the tone of posts (perhaps prior to PBCs) drove me away for many months.
I have eventually been able to have some excellent discussions with people whose opinions and beliefs differ from mine and I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and see other points of view.
Which, IMO, would be impossible (for me) without the rules being the way they are.
{sorry, madeline, too much info, probably...)
Posted by wildcard11 on March 12, 2006, at 4:41:45
In reply to IMO, it used to be worse.... » madeline, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2006, at 17:23:37
Posted by Declan on March 12, 2006, at 19:08:33
In reply to IMO, it used to be worse.... » madeline, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2006, at 17:23:37
It has certainly been tightened up since then, hasn't it? I went back and read just some of the posts from then (looking, actually, for what Sad Panda had said that got him blocked for a year, didn't find it, must lack search skills)and was astonished by those posts. But it just becomes quite silly when whoever got a PBC for saying the President surrounds himself with like-minded people. It is redundant, perhaps, to say that he would be a poor President if he did not.
And can we offend the feelings of people who aren't here? Like Iraqis, or most of the world, not represented here. Or in my posts, some of my referrences are to the Australian Government (venality), although it wasn't made clear and would probably have been assumed to apply to the US government.
Declan
Posted by madeline on March 12, 2006, at 19:19:20
In reply to Re: IMO, it used to be worse.... » 10derHeart, posted by Declan on March 12, 2006, at 19:08:33
blocked for a year????
My goodness. That must have been some post.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 12, 2006, at 19:21:09
In reply to Re: IMO, it used to be worse.... » 10derHeart, posted by Declan on March 12, 2006, at 19:08:33
Really?
That makes things certainly interesting on the meds board now.
gg
Posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 19:23:54
In reply to Re: IMO, it used to be worse.... » 10derHeart, posted by Declan on March 12, 2006, at 19:08:33
((((((((((declan))))))))))))
nice to see you back :-)
missed you.i think i'm keeping away from politics :-(
shame really...
Posted by Declan on March 13, 2006, at 18:42:05
In reply to yet another block on politics???? (((zeugma))), posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:25:51
Any discussion of the President is going to be highly offensive to someone or other. Politics, after all, is the alternative to war. I disagree with the idea that there can be significant political discussions that are inoffensive. There are great issues at stake, so insult and offense exist PRIOR to any discussion. Perhaps civility is a possibility. Maybe.
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on March 13, 2006, at 19:39:56
In reply to Sad Panda got blocked for a year?, posted by gardenergirl on March 12, 2006, at 19:21:09
Anyone have the link?
Sometimes people dissappear and don't realize they have been blocked.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:53:16
In reply to Sad Panda got blocked for a year?, posted by gardenergirl on March 12, 2006, at 19:21:09
> Really?
> That makes things certainly interesting on the meds board now.
> ggare you aware of a blocked poster using another account to access this site? goodness we'd hope as deputy AND as a member of this community you'd do the right thing and report such shennanigans to the admin if that is what is happening. otherwise we'll just take your comment as "hmmmmm...interesting observation.....how very zenlike and all" ;)
a huge thank you for your contributions to PB as deputy in helping keep this environment civil. your adherence to the rules of this site continue to be wonderful examples for posters to model.....Dr. Bob sure chose well with his three deputies and their vastly differnt styles. in no time we'll have Dinah-esque, GG-esque and Auntie Mel-esque posters when it comes to stating things in a civil fashion. everybody wins!!
this community is fortunate you, and Dinah and Auntie Mel, have the time to volunteer here with all you have going on IRL. thanks for all you do GG and Dinah and AM!!
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 19:52:15
In reply to Re: Sad Panda got blocked for a year? » gardenergirl, posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:53:16
Thank you. :)
I agree that different voices make for a harmonious whole.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 20, 2006, at 7:33:26
In reply to Re: Sad Panda got blocked for a year? » gardenergirl, posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:53:16
> are you aware of a blocked poster using another account to access this site?
Not at this time. And it's hard to know just when someone's block is over when it was a lengthy one. With your extensive archives, perhaps you could serve as a consultant for difficult searches. ;)
>... otherwise we'll just take your comment as "hmmmmm...interesting observation.....how very zenlike and all" ;)
Wasn't it "zenesque"? I like that so much better. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050823/msgs/548736.html
As for the rest, I think Dinah said it quite well, and I agree.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 8:33:23
In reply to Re: Sad Panda got blocked for a year? » gardenergirl, posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:53:16
I've been rather busy lately, but I hope to participate more.
I thank you for your "esque" and I'm grateful my name isn't Burl.
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.