![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 21:29:27
I never thought I'd be bringing a complaint about content to this board.
I defended SalArmy4Me's MENTIONING his religious motivations I don't think it is appropriate for him to end all his posts with Salvation Army position statements.
Please see the following posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76766.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76763.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76765.htmlAmong other objections I think it creates the impression that this board is sponsered by them.
Jane
Posted by JahL on August 28, 2001, at 21:36:16
In reply to Dr. Bob - Religious prostelytizing , posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 21:29:27
> I defended SalArmy4Me's MENTIONING his religious motivations I don't think it is appropriate for him to end all his posts with Salvation Army position statements.Amen to that. I've just caught these posts. Since when did PB turn into a religious forum? Sal knows the rules...
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 28, 2001, at 22:23:42
In reply to Dr. Bob - Religious prostelytizing , posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 21:29:27
I will add to this critique of the new recruitment campaign that cut-and-paste posting of lengthy excerpts from journal articles, as is becoming a recent trend for JasonT aka SalArmy4Me, tends to offend some people's sense of fair use.
There are problems with this kind of posting, beyond that these are exclusive journals supported by a readership that pays big money to maintain a quality source of information, and that reprinting lengthy excerpts encourages others to encroach further into the vague boundaries of maybe-not-so-fair use.
One problem is that these articles about Mrs. A and Mr. B are about real people. The subjects may or may not have appreciated seeing their cases in a medical journal, but seeing their situations posted in perpetuity on the World Wide Web is something they probably never intended to invite when they asked their attending physician for help. A physician's name along with a very unique group of medications given to a patient can tend to personally identify the otherwise unnamed patient, at least to their friends, family or close associates. I expected God's army would usually show a little more respect for privacy than that.
The other problem is it just lacks creativity. Cutting and pasting requires little thought. Many people obviously appreciate some of Sal's research work but, by my analysis, when the presenter does no more than paste lengthy excerpts or abstracts beneath their name, I tend to wonder if the abstract or excerpt is relevant. The information appears to be credible, but if the presenter has not taken the time to explain the relevance, I wonder if the presenter has taken time to consider the relevance. The format raises doubts in my mind about the credibility of the editor, in this case SalArmy4Me. In turn, that makes me wonder what kind of a division the officers of the Southern California Salvation Army are running.
As for the religious stuff, I have had plenty meals of at Salvation Army kitchens or similar eateries. I wear Salvation Army clothes and my house is furnished with Salvation Army artifacts. But my soul is not saved by Salvation Army rhetoric. If that doctrine is what it takes to motivate people to be kind and to share, power to them. But when I pick up a hitchhiker, or do some other charitable favor, I am not doing it to persuade anyone to accept my pagan philosophy. By the same reasoning, I soon turn away from charity that is provided as part of a religious recruitment package.
Believe me, dudes and dudessess, I understand the evangelical imperative, and share Sal's sense of zeal for promoting what provides him comfort. But what I appreciate most Salvation Army services is that they are offered with no strings attached. When a person starts trying to infiltrate my spiritual or emotional space with favors or charity, I can’t help but wonder what other space of mine they might try to violate given the opportunity or a slightly different circumstance.
Posted by Cam W. on August 28, 2001, at 22:49:03
In reply to Prostelytizing and lack-luster editing, too, posted by Pennie Lane on August 28, 2001, at 22:23:42
Now, now Pennie; people will start to think that you are me (=op). Most of Sal's cut and paste are just abstracts, which are public domain (I believe), as long as they are not used for profit. I just don't like the posts where he pastes something that doesn't answer the question that was asked. This shows a lack of understanding on his part. Perhaps, he should stick to personal experience.
As for the religious stuff; I feel that he is thumbing his nose in our face; and at "our" beliefs.
- Cam
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 28, 2001, at 22:59:36
In reply to Re: Prostelytizing and lack-luster editing, too » Pennie Lane, posted by Cam W. on August 28, 2001, at 22:49:03
Cam
Yeh, to most of that. The abstracts are okay, by me, though not always relevant, as you have so astutely pointed out. The main theme of my whine is about the posting of long excerpts, especially those that include case histories. Unfairly used and invasive, they are.
I tend to agree on the other, at least I feel as if he is thumbing his nose or something. But that is the way it appears to me, based on how it effects me, or "us". I sometimes wonder if people do these *unacceptable* things hoping they will be accepted. It's like, maybe people just can't face that others won't see the world the way they do. Since they can't face it, they act as if people will accept it. River in Egypt - De, uh, Nile? Maybe there is no forethought toward "stirring things up" but rather a blind and misguided faith that they will find acceptance. Like, I'm really sure everyone will agree with all of this post...
Posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 23:28:16
In reply to Re: Prostelytizing and lack-luster editing, too, posted by Pennie Lane on August 28, 2001, at 22:59:36
I'm not really comfortable with speculating about motives. It seems bound to be inflammatory and I'm often not that sure that my own would withstand scrutiny.
Jane
Posted by shelliR on August 28, 2001, at 23:32:23
In reply to Dr. Bob - Religious prostelytizing , posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 21:29:27
> I never thought I'd be bringing a complaint about content to this board.
>
> I defended SalArmy4Me's MENTIONING his religious motivations I don't think it is appropriate for him to end all his posts with Salvation Army position statements.
>
> Please see the following posts:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76766.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76763.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76765.html
>
> Among other objections I think it creates the impression that this board is sponsered by them.
>
> JaneI agree with your opinions about the quotes. The quotes are viscerally upsetting to me, but I don't really understand how to draw a line here. I personally don't like signatures with any type of message, even inspirational quotes that are non-denominational in nature are often offensive to me.
I don't think that we are in any position to analyze with any accuracy Sal's motivation so I believe that should be left out of the discussion. I also think a discussion of how much quoting from publications is acceptable should be a topic of another thread. Although it may be worth exploring, it's a completely different subject and bound together it comes across as Sal bashing. Again.
I really don't like seeing this board become more and more censored, but disallowing this quotation thing is absolutely acceptable to me. Maybe this is a case where the rule is made and Dr. Bob makes the judgment call.
Shelli
Posted by Krazy Kat on August 29, 2001, at 12:04:05
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - Religious prostelytizing » Jane D, posted by shelliR on August 28, 2001, at 23:32:23
And for my meager two cents, I think Shelli hit it on the head. At this point, the quote is really what is offending. To be honest, liberal as I am in most respects, it would be offending to me if it were something about the Goddess Earth and our rights owed to her. I would get tired of seeing it. It would become a challenge to one-up each others quotes. And you all have seen the the "signatures" allowed on Other sites... fuzzy little bears, unicorns (of course, now I've offended unicorn-lovers).
Folks tend to bash Christians because they see homosexuality as a sin. It is proclaimed as a sin - in Leviticus, along with the suggestion of stoning adulterers. They don't usually look down on Homosexuals, just the act itself.
But, that's neither here or there. Especially on the med site, I would think no quotes is a good rule.
- Krazy Kat (formerly Kingfish, who is resting up after a long summer of playing in the creek).
Posted by Cam W. on August 29, 2001, at 18:40:39
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Salvation Army Uniformed Soldiers: The Pure Expression of Christianity and Charity. Be someone...be a Christian.
>
> Sal - There are people who do find this very reprehensible. There are many religions is this world and Christianity is but one. The constant pro-Christian diatribe just cheapens any real advice that you may give. Do you not understand this? Please keep your religious views to yourself.
>
> I thought that Christians were to be tolerant of all religions; apparently I have been mistaken. If I feel comfortable in your shoes, I may wear them, but please do not nail them to my feet. - Cam
•Dr.Bob• - Are you still playing a "wait and see" game with SalArmy4Me? Yes, he is cutting his own throat with this. But when dj expressed his views on religion and was provoked to defend his side, you blocked him. Sal is thumbing his nose at all of us who said we were offended with his constant religious banter, and he continues to thumb his nose at us, and has no regard for our point of view. His latest jab is below, but I can (and others have) show several instances where he is not respecting the views of others.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76865.html
Does this mean that I can end all of my posts with quotes from the Satanic Bible? This whole situation is absolutely ludicrous. Why are you letting it continue?
Posted by stjames on August 29, 2001, at 21:21:08
In reply to Dr. Bob - Religious prostelytizing , posted by Jane D on August 28, 2001, at 21:29:27
PLEASE
Posted by stjames on August 29, 2001, at 22:30:29
In reply to Re: Very Inappropriate!! - Dr.Bob » Cam W., posted by Cam W. on August 29, 2001, at 18:40:39
Many have asked him "Please don't do that" (about the sigs) So he started doing it more. I can't help feeling like he wants to save us all. I hate it when people want to "save" me.
While I enjoyed the info, I am sorry I posted to your defence, at times. The other shoe has dropped. You just pulled off the mask, Sal.
Opps, now I have done it ! Shouting and cussing, plus "You just pulled off the mask" can't be considered civil in any way. Sorry, Dr. Bob.
James
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:05
In reply to With respect, Dr Bob. GODDAMMIT, DO SOMETHING, posted by stjames on August 29, 2001, at 21:21:08
> I defended SalArmy4Me's MENTIONING his religious motivations I don't think it is appropriate for him to end all his posts with Salvation Army position statements.
>
> Jane> As for the religious stuff; I feel that he is thumbing his nose in our face; and at "our" beliefs.
>
> - Cam> And for my meager two cents, I think Shelli hit it on the head. At this point, the quote is really what is offending. To be honest, liberal as I am in most respects, it would be offending to me if it were something about the Goddess Earth and our rights owed to her...
>
> Folks tend to bash Christians because they see homosexuality as a sin...
>
> - Krazy Kat> Does this mean that I can end all of my posts with quotes from the Satanic Bible? This whole situation is absolutely ludicrous. Why are you letting it continue?
>
> - CamSorry, I've been preoccupied with technical issues...
I do think it's time to draw another line. But where? Offensiveness is in the eyes of the beholder...
The goals here are support and education. So it's OK to share what's worked for you. But it's not OK to pressure others to do the same or to put them down for doing something else.
1. Referring to others as sinners usually isn't supportive. I don't think I've seen SalArmy4me put down anyone else's religion, however.
2. Pressuring others to join a particular faith or cause usually isn't supportive, either. Promotional material should therefore be avoided. A link to more information, for example:
> http://www.salvationarmy.org
or a simple tag line, for example:
> --J.T., Soldier: USA West Territory, Sierra Del Mar and Southern California Divisions
at the end of a post I think would be fine.
How about that?
----
> I sometimes wonder if people do these *unacceptable* things hoping they will be accepted. It's like, maybe people just can't face that others won't see the world the way they do. Since they can't face it, they act as if people will accept it... Maybe there is no forethought toward "stirring things up" but rather a blind and misguided faith that they will find acceptance. Like, I'm really sure everyone will agree with all of this post...
From the horse's mouth, as they say? :-)
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 5:51:41
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:05
Dr.Bob - So, that means I could sign my posts at the bottom:
"Cam - Minion of His Lordship Satan, the "real" power on this Earth."
I am not a Satanist, but what you are saying is that it would be within my right to say this a the bottom of each of my posts. Quite frankly, I do lump all religions together.
BTW - Do you know the difference between between a religion and a cult? .... About 100 years.
In all sincerity - Cam
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2001, at 11:17:39
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 5:51:41
> So, that means I could sign my posts at the bottom:
>
> "Cam - Minion of His Lordship Satan, the "real" power on this Earth."Yes, I guess that's what that means. Well, except that "the "real" power on this Earth" could be considered promotional...
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on August 31, 2001, at 11:37:50
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing » Minion of Satan, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2001, at 11:17:39
Posted by terra miller on August 31, 2001, at 23:03:20
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:05
> The goals here are support and education. So it's OK to share what's worked for you. But it's not OK to pressure others to do the same or to put them down for doing something else.
> or a simple tag line, for example:
>
> > --J.T., Soldier: USA West Territory, Sierra Del Mar and Southern California Divisions
>
> at the end of a post I think would be fine.
>
> How about that?dear dr. bob- i'm usually really good about caring for myself and just reading what i need to and avoiding the rest. i wanted to point out something constructively here. that is, if the goals at this site are for "support" then i think it is educational to note that spiritual references at any point in a post-- "especially a tag" can be _extremely triggering_ to some. (perhaps more so if it is a signature type tag in a nonspiritual thread; that is insensitive) i'm actually triggered even by Sal's nic, but i choose to overlook it... literally skim over it. it seems to me that educating one who posts about this only makes them and others more understanding and supportive.
i am very aware of being responsible for my own actions and reactions. however, as i consciously choose to read only factual posts in order to educate myself on my own medical and psychological care, i find it unnerving to find traps where i did not expect. that's the risk i take, of course. but it also means that in caring for myself i know "who" to avoid reading, which is unfortunate because i cannot risk the chance of reading something triggering and may miss reading some valuable educational information or support.
for me, and who knows who else, this discussion is not a theoretical one. i am working very hard to heal from some extreme abuse. sometimes it's necessary to make a stand and stop theorizing....
aside from rescuing us from all wrong, i would appreciate knowing you were actively mediating when necessary with people/where insensitive material is knowingly/unknowingly posted.
you can't control everybody, but you can educate them which provides them with the opportunity for change and growth. ...and a more supportive site.
respectfully freaking out, -terra
Posted by Shar on September 1, 2001, at 22:25:59
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing - LOL! (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on August 31, 2001, at 11:37:50
That's the Texas version of Cam's Minions.
S
Posted by akc on September 1, 2001, at 22:29:49
In reply to Society of the Deity Armadillo, posted by Shar on September 1, 2001, at 22:25:59
> That's the Texas version of Cam's Minions.
>
> SA diety I can finally worship.
Posted by Kristi on September 3, 2001, at 1:03:33
In reply to Re: Religious proselytizing, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:05
One thing I have learned in my 33 years (well, hopefully I've learned at least a little more).. but never publically discuss politics or religion. Doesn't get anyone anywhere. There are people who believe so STRONGLY in their beliefs that they just can't imagine other people may just think differently. Just pass his posts... don't read the parts that offend you. When I first remember him posting, I could be wrong, but I don't remember as much of a "sign Off". Maybe we're egging him on?
> > I defended SalArmy4Me's MENTIONING his religious motivations I don't think it is appropriate for him to end all his posts with Salvation Army position statements.
> >
> > Jane
>
> > As for the religious stuff; I feel that he is thumbing his nose in our face; and at "our" beliefs.
> >
> > - Cam
>
> > And for my meager two cents, I think Shelli hit it on the head. At this point, the quote is really what is offending. To be honest, liberal as I am in most respects, it would be offending to me if it were something about the Goddess Earth and our rights owed to her...
> >
> > Folks tend to bash Christians because they see homosexuality as a sin...
> >
> > - Krazy Kat
>
> > Does this mean that I can end all of my posts with quotes from the Satanic Bible? This whole situation is absolutely ludicrous. Why are you letting it continue?
> >
> > - Cam
>
> Sorry, I've been preoccupied with technical issues...
>
> I do think it's time to draw another line. But where? Offensiveness is in the eyes of the beholder...
>
> The goals here are support and education. So it's OK to share what's worked for you. But it's not OK to pressure others to do the same or to put them down for doing something else.
>
> 1. Referring to others as sinners usually isn't supportive. I don't think I've seen SalArmy4me put down anyone else's religion, however.
>
> 2. Pressuring others to join a particular faith or cause usually isn't supportive, either. Promotional material should therefore be avoided. A link to more information, for example:
>
> > http://www.salvationarmy.org
>
> or a simple tag line, for example:
>
> > --J.T., Soldier: USA West Territory, Sierra Del Mar and Southern California Divisions
>
> at the end of a post I think would be fine.
>
> How about that?
>
> ----
>
> > I sometimes wonder if people do these *unacceptable* things hoping they will be accepted. It's like, maybe people just can't face that others won't see the world the way they do. Since they can't face it, they act as if people will accept it... Maybe there is no forethought toward "stirring things up" but rather a blind and misguided faith that they will find acceptance. Like, I'm really sure everyone will agree with all of this post...
>
> From the horse's mouth, as they say? :-)
>
> Bob
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.