![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 15:21:19
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 13:51:13
> Conceivably some reasons might offend a member of this forum from a third world country, though whether we have had such beyond expats I am not aware.
I have some not terribly firm memory of someone from another country saying they would prefer that their country not be called a "third world country". I don't recall offhand whether this was because they preferred "developing country" or if they did not believe the designation was accurate for their country. I probably should have made a note so as not to inadvertently offend in future.
Posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 16:48:41
In reply to Hmmm » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 15:21:19
>third world country
It's a bit 70s, isn't it?
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 17:38:27
In reply to Re: Hmmm, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 16:48:41
It appears it may be! I have to confess that prior to looking it up just now, it was one of those phrases that I had heard but never really paused to think about other than to idly wonder who were first and second world countries.
But now I do know, so thank you.
Posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 20:56:47
In reply to Re: Hmmm » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 17:38:27
Is the second world the communist block?
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 21:02:08
In reply to Re: Hmmm » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 20:56:47
Yes. And the third world was originally intended to mean "everyone else". Which would cover a pretty wide range of countries. Thinking of it as developing vs developed seems to be incorrect on my part, in terms of original useage.
It's my admittedly ignorant observation that the term has come to mean more than that. I think I also ran across a site that said it's come to be considered a negative term and that countries don't really like it applied to themselves. But that's a pretty cursory look on my part, so I could be totally wrong in that. For all I know it's the preferred term.
I always enjoy the opportunity to explore these things.
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 5:42:58
In reply to Re: it is obama now, posted by sdb on January 24, 2009, at 13:07:20
> > > > The attack that was launched by G.W. Bush has similarities of A. Hitler's attack on Poland (the incidences at the border)
> > >
> > > Please don't post anything that could lead others, such as supporters of Bush or those who were in favor of military action, to feel accused or put down.
> > >
> > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
> > >
> > > Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
> > >
> > > Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
> >
> > i accept your advice Dinah but I think the same that world war II survivors told me. And this is that there are similarities.
> >
> > I remember when families of soldiers in the US demonstrated actively for the war, they could not wait before the attack was launched. It's too bad that I have a good memory sometimes.
> >
> > Some politicians then look for a pretext. Maybe to live the agression, to steal diamonds, oil or land.
> >
> > Where are these weapons of mass destruction?
>
> at the same time I make an excuse to Bush supporters when they may feel sad and hurt about my statement but I make an excuse to children also who lost one of their extremities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I make an excuse because I am a human being.Applying these rules I now should say to the nazi who was attacked by a punk: "I am sorry that you can't smell anymore because you felt on your occipital bone, but because you said that they're bastards I have to punish you somehow". This clearly is ridiculous and absurd. It is not an all day, hospital, sport, hobby or another situation but here it is an online forum situation. What this shows is that there are clear limitations in such a forum or/and it is difficult to manage ethical issues in an online forum. What is shows is then that it can also be very questionable to punish somebody.
Not being allowed to explain similarities and real facts in history means to disavow something categorical. This behavior can be uncivil towards other individuals. When I say by applying the policies here: "this government accepted torture and violated Geneva laws" I must make an excuse to Bush supporters for that statement at the same time which is alarming and uncivil.
warm regards
sdb
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 11:51:00
In reply to Re: questionable ethical policies, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 5:42:58
> > > I remember when families of soldiers in the US demonstrated actively for the war, they could not wait before the attack was launched. It's too bad that I have a good memory sometimes.
> > >
> > > Some politicians then look for a pretext. Maybe to live the agression, to steal diamonds, oil or land.Please don't post anything that could lead others, such as families of soldiers, to feel accused or put down. Please also do not repeat or quote anything that has been deemed uncivil.
Per the FAQ:
> Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
This may be the Politics board, but Politics is not the primary purpose of the site. The civility guidelines for the Politics and Faith boards are different than they might be if the primary purpose of this site was to discuss Politics or Faith. Some administrators have chosen to completely disallow the discussion of politics or religion on their site. Dr. Bob has chosen not to do that, but has frankly limited the content posted here. Your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this is not necessarily the place.
Posters on the Faith Board have expressed the same concerns. But this is Dr. Bob's position. As with any other site, posting here requires that you follow site guidelines.
If you choose not to follow site guidelines after warnings, you will be blocked for one week. Maximum block lengths after that are calculated in accordance with the formula in the FAQ.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 12:30:51
In reply to Please follow site guidelines » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 11:51:00
well then it makes sense to discuss something and after a common agreement to change rules. If you can't change something then it is definitely <not> ethical here...
Posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 12:40:13
In reply to Re: Please follow site guidelines, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 12:30:51
There is always the potential to change Dr. Bob's mind about site guidelines. The place to request changes is Administration. Requests need to be made without violating current site guidelines, so it would be safest to state your request generally, without using examples that would currently be against board guidelines.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:01:21
In reply to Re: Please follow site guidelines » sdb, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 12:40:13
> There is always the potential to change Dr. Bob's mind about site guidelines. The place to request changes is Administration. Requests need to be made without violating current site guidelines, so it would be safest to state your request generally, without using examples that would currently be against board guidelines.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bobah you're able to change something maybe. That's something more positive.
I will place a request later when there's more time. Keep in mind that I have to post at least a link to what is currently considered as 'uncivil'.
I just read the guidelines here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
and my impression is that I don't violate any current rules.
it's possible than somebody is misinterpreting what is written there.
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 13:25:51
In reply to Re: Please follow site guidelines, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:01:21
Feel free to email Dr. Bob the links. He has oversight over all deputy decisions, and he's likely to see it sooner if you email him. His email is at the bottom of each page.
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:38:21
In reply to Re: Please follow site guidelines, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:01:21
> > There is always the potential to change Dr. Bob's mind about site guidelines. The place to request changes is Administration. Requests need to be made without violating current site guidelines, so it would be safest to state your request generally, without using examples that would currently be against board guidelines.
> >
> > Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
>
> ah you're able to change something maybe. That's something more positive.
>
> I will place a request later when there's more time. Keep in mind that I have to post at least a link to what is currently considered as 'uncivil'.
>
> I just read the guidelines here:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> and my impression is that I don't violate any current rules.
>
> it's possible than somebody is misinterpreting what is written there.
>I very agree with these guidelines eg.
"conducive to civic harmony and welfare"for me, that means also to be reflective about the past, to admit mistakes sometimes and to try not to do it again.
I don't have any problems with ww2 survivors comparing how wars do start. I personally find it 'conducive to civic harmony and welfare' to listen what older people say who survived a war and pointing out similarities to make us aware again and again not do harm people. If you can't there isn't freedom of speech.
Here, I am not really satisfied with the deputies actions and I don't think that these actions follow the guidelines.
Finally, I think it's better to leave this not to waste too much energy.
bye
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 13:55:12
In reply to Re: site guidelines ?, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:38:21
Again, Dr. Bob does not routinely read most boards. If you wish to point out something about deputy actions to him, your best bet is to contact him directly.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 25, 2009, at 13:55:29
In reply to Re: site guidelines ?, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:38:21
> If you can't there isn't freedom of speech.
We don't have complete freedom of speech here, as indicated in the FAQ. That's just part of the reality of participation here. Dr. Bob's house; Dr. Bob's rules.
gg
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:59:36
In reply to Re: site guidelines ? » sdb, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2009, at 13:55:12
> Again, Dr. Bob does not routinely read most boards. If you wish to point out something about deputy actions to him, your best bet is to contact him directly.
thanks, Mesdames, I suppose thats the best idea here
Posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 14:04:24
In reply to Re: site guidelines ? } gg} dinah, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:59:36
> > Again, Dr. Bob does not routinely read most boards. If you wish to point out something about deputy actions to him, your best bet is to contact him directly.
>
> thanks, Mesdames, I suppose thats the best idea here
>good afternoon, by the way, I've to feed the cats and to go in bed early so that I am able to work tomorrow in the machine.
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 15:34:34
In reply to it is obama now, posted by sdb on January 24, 2009, at 5:04:43
>similarities of A. Hitler's attack on Poland (the incidences at the border)
There might well have been one. As Seymour Hersch reported, Cheney's office seriously considered building an Iranian patrol boat and manufacturing an international incident. That's a parallel that did not eventuate, but it was chillingly close
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 15:37:07
In reply to Re: site guidelines ? } gg} dinah, posted by sdb on January 25, 2009, at 13:59:36
That is the first Mesdamme I can recall on Babble.
It brings to mind 'Don't madam me'.
Posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 15:40:27
In reply to Re: it is obama now » sdb, posted by Sigismund on January 25, 2009, at 15:34:34
>As Seymour Hersch reported, Cheney's office seriously considered building an Iranian patrol boat and manufacturing an international incident. That's a parallel that did not eventuate, but it was chillingly close.
The issue was decided in advance by the situation in Iraq, but had that situation been different, had the people of Iraq responded more as expected, then what about Iran?
They too were waiting for liberation.
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on January 26, 2009, at 23:52:43
In reply to Please be civil » Sigismund, posted by Deputy Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 13:26:36
> > IMO, it is the attitude of the Western democracies that is the issue.
> >
> > I don't know if you could call it racism.
> >
> > I don't know if it is just cultural arrogance.
> >
> > But it is SOMETHING
> > that allows the invasion of 3rd world countries under the kinds of creaky pretexts that we have seen, apart, of course, from their assets.
>
> Sigismund, please don't post anything that could lead others, such as citizens of Western democracies or supporters of the military action, to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. BobDinah, Sigi didn't mention any names, places, times, etc. If I say I hate war, that is fine...all is fair. So, c'mon..
Jay
Posted by Dinah on January 27, 2009, at 7:58:18
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on January 26, 2009, at 23:52:43
Dr. Bob's email is at the bottom of each page. That's probably the best way to reach him.
Posted by fayeroe on January 27, 2009, at 14:39:01
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Dinah on January 27, 2009, at 7:58:18
old days before the train wreck.
Posted by Sigismund on January 27, 2009, at 16:02:35
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on January 26, 2009, at 23:52:43
In all fairness Jay, I think it is fair to assume that I was implying that the western democracies have the qualities to which I referred and which it is uncivil to mention further.
But it's not just the western democracies. The western monarchies were worse. There are no supporters of King Leopold here to feel put down.
Ingenuity through civility is my watchword.
Posted by garnet71 on February 7, 2009, at 18:45:10
In reply to Hmmm » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 15:21:19
> > Conceivably some reasons might offend a member of this forum from a third world country, though whether we have had such beyond expats I am not aware.
>
> I have some not terribly firm memory of someone from another country saying they would prefer that their country not be called a "third world country". I don't recall offhand whether this was because they preferred "developing country" or if they did not believe the designation was accurate for their country. I probably should have made a note so as not to inadvertently offend in future.------------------
Not to be meticulous, but I've befriended several people from "third world countries' through my years of college, and in relevant classes, countries were described in terms of first world, second, third; or developed, developing, undeveloped....I've never come across a classmate or friend who was offended by the statement.
In fact, you can't really discuss world issues, in terms of the world system, w/o the descriptive nature of the development of countries, from a scholastic sense. Hope that helps :)
Posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 14:11:34
In reply to Re: Hmmm » Dinah, posted by garnet71 on February 7, 2009, at 18:45:10
When I was in Vietnam a decade ago I was on a ferry somewhere speaking to some random friendly person, and the conversation went thus
Hello
Hello
Where do you come from?
Australia.
What do you think of our standard of living?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | 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.