and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...
I've mentioned that I have wound up as the extended families' archivist, and have thousands of pages of stuff that has been dumped on me over the years. One of my uncles spent years after he retired building a blog site where he posted content about the tiny town in Iowa where he was born and (for a while) raised.
One of the first things on my list of stuff to get safely tucked away in digital form when I decided to be serious about it was that blog content. Quite a bit of what I learned pulling everything out of Obsidian Wings was useful for pulling his stuff out of Blogger. Multiple copies are stored away now.
I think that the diversity--meaning the self-defined conservative voices---lessened because they simply couldn't justify their positions. This is a very smart, well-informed, articulate group of people and the self-defined conservatives found their positions being picked apart, analyzed, scrutinized and rebutted. So they either got nasty or left or moderated. Or redefined "conservative".
I think it is weird but sort of cute that someone has been recording birthdays. Like an odd hobby.
Male, neutered, orange, and about fifteen years old, if anyone is wondering. Birthday unknown.
I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.
From back at the time when it looked like the hosting service was going to drop Typepad, and the Typepad export-content function was broken, and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...
I still have a flat text file with everything up to that point. Thumbing through on the word alien (case independent), there are numerous mentions of space aliens. Someone flat out states that Moe Lane is a space alien. Someone follows that with, "No, I meant intelligent space aliens." There seems to be agreement that Alien vs Predator is the definitive example of film franchises that have gone on too long. Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.
lj, I wondered whether you'd pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let's put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.
A couple of observations. I'm probably a/the fly in the ointment. I'm happy to discuss things, but I am pretty big on examining unexamined assumptions. I'll try and illustrate this with an example that's on me.
GftNC and I had an exchange on manipulate and draw out. However, I went back to the comment and I said in the very same comment What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn't have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings.
GftNC could say I was wasn't being honest, cause "pulling strings" conjures up the image of a marionette. But I hope that the full quote shows that I'm making the assumption that she wouldn't have started the conversation if she knew she was just being recruited as a foot soldier in the war on cultural Marxism. But she was right to point that out. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about sockpuppets for a while.
Unfortunately, a lot of arguing on the internet takes running off the other side as winning. While that was true for folks like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, not so true now. The whole concept of sealioning springs from this, but it shares a notion with other similar interactions, which is to goad a person taking one side of the argument into blowing up and then taking the moral high ground.
From this, I think that it isn't so much the topic, it is the way the argument is processed. I was looking at the old posts and the big debate was gay marriage, which invited as much feeling back then.
Another thing, I imagine some people were a bit taken aback by Charles' text file of our ages, which seems a bit Stasi-like. In a lot of places, especially if people don't have much of a reason to play nice, there would have been fireworks at the comment giving the age range. 'how the F would you know that?' might have been a response. But I'm pretty pleased that this didn't happen here. I can't speak for others, but the whole thing seemed very Charles-like.
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing
LOL And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
To quote the Spartans: "if".
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
Anyone who's willing to engage in reasoned, fact-based, and tolerably polite discussion.
I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority. And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy.
I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.
If anyone has better Typepad-fu than I do (which is probably everyone) and wants to give it try, I will appreciate it. I think it was quite a while ago, but I'm not sure of a particular time period.
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
I'll also note that a random walk through the archives will show that we've had more than a few... interesting characters here over the years.
Anyone besides me remember Brick Over Bill and his recipes for rice and beans? :)
Maybe I'm living in some kind of fantasy ObWi populated by the bizarre flotsam and jetsam of my imagination....
Also, wj - I'm fine with people who refer to their faith-based beliefs as part of why they think what they do - I've done that myself here on a few occasions. But folks coming from that perspective have to respect that many or most folks here may not find that persuasive.
conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy. You've done it before; he was before my time, and I am deeply resentful to have missed him!
Yeah, I can't imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can't see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of "reliable sources", wj, you definitely make an excellent point - that is problematic. All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.
More seriously: How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
tl;dr - anybody sensible, for any reasonable definition of "sensible", is probably OK with me.
I'm OK with people who voted for Trump, per se. Not sure about full on MAGA cultist, they yell a lot and don't seem to understand the concept of argument from fact. But, I'd be willing to give it a try.
Also re: MAGAs, I personally would draw a bright line around gender- or race- or ethnic-based theories of human value and superiority, they just trigger my inner impulse to invite them to f*** right off. It's a personal failing, I know - judge not, keep an open mind, right? - but one I am willing to own. We all have our limits.
I'm probably more comfortable with religious fundamentalists than most folks here due to personal history, but conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Also, it's a fraught time, it's easy for things to go sideways. If there actually are conservatives of any of the varieties you name interested in joining the party, we might need to update / reinstate posting rules, just to make sure everybody stays in bounds.
For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I'm guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: "I don't much care for change, but can be convinced that it's necessary in specific instances"? Moderate conservatives: "There are things that need changing, but I'd generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes"? Centerists-- those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?
What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?
Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
lj, thanks for the link to the original post. I have been a perennial lurker since the days of Moe but I didn't know when the blog actually started. I miss those days because there was a good mix of voices at the time. I think your analysis is correct when the blog switched to mostly liberal voices. I don't know if the conservatives didn't want to engage anymore or if the just felt overrun. I think that overrun feeling has happened to a few people as the blog moved majority liberal. I still love coming here - never stop, please!
What a long strange trip it's been.
Indeed. My apologies to all for angering you at one time or another over the course of the years.* The "all" would seem to include just about everybody here.
But as a famous sage once said, "(You'll) get over it."
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
An injury to one is an injury to all.
* list of the greatest hits available upon request.
Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box
These three were definitely not hawks.
I think the general consensus was that Afghanistan was the necessary war. And people were quite positive about Libya, at least initially - because of Obama/Clinton.
I am talking about having conversations with people who would excuse every atrocity and defend the use of torture. It's quite similar to the positions taken regarding the Gaza war now.
Besides the actual torture apologists there were those who grandly conceded that torture is wrong, but strongly justfied blowing scores of people to bits in the name of freedom a la "you have to destroy the village to save it". I'm glad those people left.
If you are talking about the original crew, that was before my time, but we had Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box. I would try and take a look, but the whole Typepad architecture is very slow and creaky.
But I can pull up the first blog post in case you want a starting point. https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/11/howdy_howdy_how.html
which has this Second, this is not, strictly speaking, a Right-wing blog: it's pretty much a centrist one. While I carry my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy card with pride, my fellow-bloggers do not. They aren't froth-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, mind you - which will probably disqualify them as being on the Left for a very small yet vocal group of people - but they are most assuredly not Republicans. I look forward to their insights and challenges to my own ideological leanings. I also have a somewhat larger list of people (of varying political beliefs) whom I'm going to hit up for special guest posts from time to time: but for at least the start, three bloggers is probably an optimal number to regularly post here.
Again, this is before I was here, but my understanding is that Moe Lane started the blog, and he was on the conservative side, and worked hard to get voices from the other side, which then moved the blog to the left of center slant it has today.
Talking about good old days, during Iraq/Afgahnistan/Libya, a common plaint (out on the internet) was gee, I wish we could go back to the old Cold War days.
novakant:
"But let's also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. "
I think that's when the split started on ObiWi. We had 500+ comment posts about torture, with people who recognized torture as an atrocity, full stop, arguing with people who thought torture was justified and useful. IIRC, most of the original front pagers were still around, and most of them were Iraq War hawks.
LOL. I guess there's a reason the Hippocratic oath is supposed to start with 'first do no harm' (a wikipedia check says it ain't so Although it is often said that "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath, no such phrase from which "First" or "Primum" can be translated appears in the text of the original oath, although a similar intention is vowed by, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm". Another related phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient". and it likely took shape from longstanding popular nonmedical expression.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...
I've mentioned that I have wound up as the extended families' archivist, and have thousands of pages of stuff that has been dumped on me over the years. One of my uncles spent years after he retired building a blog site where he posted content about the tiny town in Iowa where he was born and (for a while) raised.
One of the first things on my list of stuff to get safely tucked away in digital form when I decided to be serious about it was that blog content. Quite a bit of what I learned pulling everything out of Obsidian Wings was useful for pulling his stuff out of Blogger. Multiple copies are stored away now.
"
I think that the diversity--meaning the self-defined conservative voices---lessened because they simply couldn't justify their positions. This is a very smart, well-informed, articulate group of people and the self-defined conservatives found their positions being picked apart, analyzed, scrutinized and rebutted. So they either got nasty or left or moderated. Or redefined "conservative".
I think it is weird but sort of cute that someone has been recording birthdays. Like an odd hobby.
Male, neutered, orange, and about fifteen years old, if anyone is wondering. Birthday unknown.
"
I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.
From back at the time when it looked like the hosting service was going to drop Typepad, and the Typepad export-content function was broken, and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...
I still have a flat text file with everything up to that point. Thumbing through on the word alien (case independent), there are numerous mentions of space aliens. Someone flat out states that Moe Lane is a space alien. Someone follows that with, "No, I meant intelligent space aliens." There seems to be agreement that Alien vs Predator is the definitive example of film franchises that have gone on too long. Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.
"
lj, I wondered whether you'd pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let's put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.
"
Well, since I've collected most everyone else's birthdate or approximate age, my birthdate is 11/14/47.
"
A couple of observations. I'm probably a/the fly in the ointment. I'm happy to discuss things, but I am pretty big on examining unexamined assumptions. I'll try and illustrate this with an example that's on me.
GftNC and I had an exchange on manipulate and draw out. However, I went back to the comment and I said in the very same comment
What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn't have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings.
GftNC could say I was wasn't being honest, cause "pulling strings" conjures up the image of a marionette. But I hope that the full quote shows that I'm making the assumption that she wouldn't have started the conversation if she knew she was just being recruited as a foot soldier in the war on cultural Marxism. But she was right to point that out. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about sockpuppets for a while.
Unfortunately, a lot of arguing on the internet takes running off the other side as winning. While that was true for folks like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, not so true now. The whole concept of sealioning springs from this, but it shares a notion with other similar interactions, which is to goad a person taking one side of the argument into blowing up and then taking the moral high ground.
From this, I think that it isn't so much the topic, it is the way the argument is processed. I was looking at the old posts and the big debate was gay marriage, which invited as much feeling back then.
Another thing, I imagine some people were a bit taken aback by Charles' text file of our ages, which seems a bit Stasi-like. In a lot of places, especially if people don't have much of a reason to play nice, there would have been fireworks at the comment giving the age range. 'how the F would you know that?' might have been a response. But I'm pretty pleased that this didn't happen here. I can't speak for others, but the whole thing seemed very Charles-like.
"
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
Nah. More likely the alien space bats purged it.
"
I just posted twice but after refreshing the post disappeared each time .
"
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing
LOL
And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
To quote the Spartans: "if".
"
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
Anyone who's willing to engage in reasoned, fact-based, and tolerably polite discussion.
I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority. And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
"
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy.
I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.
If anyone has better Typepad-fu than I do (which is probably everyone) and wants to give it try, I will appreciate it. I think it was quite a while ago, but I'm not sure of a particular time period.
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
I'll also note that a random walk through the archives will show that we've had more than a few... interesting characters here over the years.
Anyone besides me remember Brick Over Bill and his recipes for rice and beans? :)
Maybe I'm living in some kind of fantasy ObWi populated by the bizarre flotsam and jetsam of my imagination....
Also, wj - I'm fine with people who refer to their faith-based beliefs as part of why they think what they do - I've done that myself here on a few occasions. But folks coming from that perspective have to respect that many or most folks here may not find that persuasive.
"
conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.
"
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy. You've done it before; he was before my time, and I am deeply resentful to have missed him!
"
Yeah, I can't imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can't see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of "reliable sources", wj, you definitely make an excellent point - that is problematic.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.
"
More seriously:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
tl;dr - anybody sensible, for any reasonable definition of "sensible", is probably OK with me.
I'm OK with people who voted for Trump, per se. Not sure about full on MAGA cultist, they yell a lot and don't seem to understand the concept of argument from fact. But, I'd be willing to give it a try.
Also re: MAGAs, I personally would draw a bright line around gender- or race- or ethnic-based theories of human value and superiority, they just trigger my inner impulse to invite them to f*** right off. It's a personal failing, I know - judge not, keep an open mind, right? - but one I am willing to own. We all have our limits.
I'm probably more comfortable with religious fundamentalists than most folks here due to personal history, but conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Also, it's a fraught time, it's easy for things to go sideways. If there actually are conservatives of any of the varieties you name interested in joining the party, we might need to update / reinstate posting rules, just to make sure everybody stays in bounds.
"
Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
bring back alien space bats guy! :)
"
For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I'm guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: "I don't much care for change, but can be convinced that it's necessary in specific instances"? Moderate conservatives: "There are things that need changing, but I'd generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes"? Centerists-- those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?
What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?
Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
"
lj, thanks for the link to the original post. I have been a perennial lurker since the days of Moe but I didn't know when the blog actually started. I miss those days because there was a good mix of voices at the time. I think your analysis is correct when the blog switched to mostly liberal voices. I don't know if the conservatives didn't want to engage anymore or if the just felt overrun. I think that overrun feeling has happened to a few people as the blog moved majority liberal. I still love coming here - never stop, please!
"
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
Hard agree.
And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.
"
What a long strange trip it's been.
Indeed. My apologies to all for angering you at one time or another over the course of the years.* The "all" would seem to include just about everybody here.
But as a famous sage once said, "(You'll) get over it."
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
An injury to one is an injury to all.
* list of the greatest hits available upon request.
"
Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box
These three were definitely not hawks.
I think the general consensus was that Afghanistan was the necessary war. And people were quite positive about Libya, at least initially - because of Obama/Clinton.
I am talking about having conversations with people who would excuse every atrocity and defend the use of torture. It's quite similar to the positions taken regarding the Gaza war now.
Besides the actual torture apologists there were those who grandly conceded that torture is wrong, but strongly justfied blowing scores of people to bits in the name of freedom a la "you have to destroy the village to save it". I'm glad those people left.
"
And going forward from that post, the three original bloggers here were Moe Lane, Katherine and von.
"
If you are talking about the original crew, that was before my time, but we had Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box. I would try and take a look, but the whole Typepad architecture is very slow and creaky.
But I can pull up the first blog post in case you want a starting point.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/11/howdy_howdy_how.html
which has this
Second, this is not, strictly speaking, a Right-wing blog: it's pretty much a centrist one. While I carry my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy card with pride, my fellow-bloggers do not. They aren't froth-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, mind you - which will probably disqualify them as being on the Left for a very small yet vocal group of people - but they are most assuredly not Republicans. I look forward to their insights and challenges to my own ideological leanings. I also have a somewhat larger list of people (of varying political beliefs) whom I'm going to hit up for special guest posts from time to time: but for at least the start, three bloggers is probably an optimal number to regularly post here.
Again, this is before I was here, but my understanding is that Moe Lane started the blog, and he was on the conservative side, and worked hard to get voices from the other side, which then moved the blog to the left of center slant it has today.
Talking about good old days, during Iraq/Afgahnistan/Libya, a common plaint (out on the internet) was gee, I wish we could go back to the old Cold War days.
"
novakant:
"But let's also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. "
I think that's when the split started on ObiWi. We had 500+ comment posts about torture, with people who recognized torture as an atrocity, full stop, arguing with people who thought torture was justified and useful. IIRC, most of the original front pagers were still around, and most of them were Iraq War hawks.
On “From the Chinatalk substack”
LOL. I guess there's a reason the Hippocratic oath is supposed to start with 'first do no harm' (a wikipedia check says it ain't so
Although it is often said that "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath, no such phrase from which "First" or "Primum" can be translated appears in the text of the original oath, although a similar intention is vowed by, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm". Another related phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient". and it likely took shape from longstanding popular nonmedical expression.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.