![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 60 to 84 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it...
> You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
>
> DinahIt isn't that they're an issue for me personally, you know... But I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
--
> I use to be on The Depression Forum we never knew how certain people were selected they were NOT selected by us..
Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
> I do not see why some view this as the only board they can be on and want to change it so much as to fight over it with you.
>
> Fallen4MyTMaybe they want everyone to benefit from their suggestions? Of course, it could also be issues with authority...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 4:07:14
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
>I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
To quote a certain somebody 'technology isn't always the answer'.
Posted by partlycloudy on December 7, 2004, at 6:23:54
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
> Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
>
> BobI don't want to go through another election year until 2008.
Actually, I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them. Let the Great and Wonderful man Behind the Curtain appoint the deputies, just as the Lion got his courage, the Tin Man his heart, and the Scarecrow his brain.
Posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict. If you decided to pass on something, it would be no harm no foul. If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so? Reporting it publicly is just likely to escalate a situation until you get to the board.
And I think you're incorrect about deputies. If something fell under the deputy rules I acted openly. But lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately about them so as not to escalate on board conflict. And lots of times, people were patient and tolerant and didn't say anything till you came 'round so it worked out for the best. It's not a similar situation, anyway. Unless you give posters blocking powers, you shouldn't expect them to take the heat for publicly complaining unless you also give them the power. You know?
I think if someone overrides automatic asterisking, they shouldn't complain about a block. :) I think that's a fine idea.
Posted by nikkit2 on December 7, 2004, at 6:56:19
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
"> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it... "
Can you understand how painful it can be to be held open to public scrutiny when you're posting whilst in pain?
I think a "report" button would be a great idea, where it emails you, but doesn't need to be a post in public.
I'm quite sure I'm not the only one that feels very hurt when my posts are "questioned".. An "off board" way would be alot better, IMNSHO
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
> I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them.
>
> partlycloudyI understand, and remember, this is just for the sake of discussion, but OTOH:
1. If someone wouldn't get any votes, it might not be such a good idea for me to appoint them, either. And IMO the vote totals wouldn't have to be public.
2. Deputies do need to be able to accept that people may "vote against" them after they're appointed.
3. Their actions might be more likely to be accepted if they're elected.
--
> Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict... If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so?
>
> lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately
>
> DinahHmm, that's true. And other people email me privately, too. And I could apply some sort of 3-complaint rule. And an email system would be easier to set up...
I guess when I did Eating and Politics I forgot that a Complaints board had also been suggested... :-) I suppose this doesn't obviate that...
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 7, 2004, at 8:48:03
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
Private reporting sounds good to me. Lots of other boards do it that way and it seems to work out just fine.
Although, there should be some mandatory box that asks WHY you are reporting the post. Otherwise, some gooberhead will report every single post every single morning before the school bus picks him up. Ya know?
emmy
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
Atticus,
You cited {Falwell v. Hustler}. In that case, there was the additional aspect of the {public figure} of libel. I do not think that that could apply to an internet forum, for the members are not public figures , except perhaps the moderator.
In the Falwell v Hustler case, the U. S. Supreme court decision may be of interest for those here to examine in relation to what some of the justices wrote about the aspect of {intentional infliction of emotional distress}in reagrds to the claimed libel and also what the appellate court wrote in respect to that.
Mr. Flynt and his brother have been tried here in Cincinnati mamy times and the 6th circiut of appeals is here in Cincinnati and Mr. Flynt has stores near here in Monroe, Ohio, ouside the Cincinnati city limits to sell his publications. This brings up the concept of { community standards} and could have a bearing in some respects to internet forums in different jurisdictions.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 11:24:02
In reply to How my previous post might apply to PB, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 0:39:36
Atticus,
You wrote,[...opinions...someone called a person an "abrasive knucklehead"...opinion...].
The forum as an opinion forum can be argumentative for this forum is a mental-health forum with restraints upon accusations, put downs and such and is monitored for such.
One way that a court could look at things in regards to libel is as to if harm is done by what is written. The harm here could be emotional harm rather than economic harm or damage to the reputation of. There could be the aspect of intentional affliction of emotional distress on account that this forum is a mental health forum which I believe constitutes different examinations by a court verses a non- mental health forum.
One of the tests that,IMO, a court could use, depending on the jurisdiction, is if the libel was the proximate cause of the emotional harm, and I do not think that the statement has to be considered to be libelious as to the standard to a non-mental health forum. The case in point here is the post calling another here a 'fruitcake" and an "idiot". These terms may not be actionable in a court for libel per se, but they could, IMO, be actionable in a court as to them being writtin on a mental-health forum. There is a poster as I remember here that wrote that he/she was called an "idiot" on another forum and as I remember it was something that the poster wrote was not liked by him/her. I will do a search for that post.
The determination of such could be made by a jury, not a psychiatrist. The plaintiff's lawyer could argue that his/her clientsuffered emotional harm and that could be enough for a sympathetic jury to render an adverse verdict toward the defendant even though the defendant's lawyer could probably argue that being called a "fruitcake" and an "idiot" {...happens every day...]. What if someone called an Orthodox Rabbi a "pig eater"? It may well be that it happens every day, but to who?
Lou
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 12:35:17
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
I'm not crazy about the idea of a machine deciding where to insert asterisks in my poems. I've been doing it myself all along and never gotten into any hot water for my decisions. If I use profanity, it's to add a certain piquance to the work and an authenticity to the punk lifestyle frequently portrayed. We don't exactly talk like people in a Jane Austin novel. Would I be able to turn the automatic censor off and continue to handle the insertion of asterisks myself? I've posted more than 50 poems and short stories, and I haven't f*cked up yet. See? ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 12:55:27
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
Lou,
You're intertwining two separate posts here. I really just tossed in Falwell v. Hustler as an additional example of how opinion speech was protected, even if it was satire. Satire is typically so outrageous that a "reasonable person" wouldn't mistake it for factual accusations. This is essentially the argument that won the day for Larry Flynt. Falwell's status as an "all-purpose public figure" did mean he would have to prove "actual malice" rather than merely "negligence" -- and actual malice (deliberately publishing something with knowledge that it is untrue or with "reckless disregard for the truth") is indeed a much higher hurdle for a plaintiff to clear. But that really wasn't a major factor in the justices' opinions. Satirists readily acknowledge that their work isn't factually true -- it is over-the-top hyperbole deliberately meant to sting the subject. I was a professional editorial cartoonist for a newspaper with a circulation of about 70,000 for years as a side job, and I DID mean to make people laugh at the politicians or social positions I lampooned. But PB certainly is not a forum for satire in any case. Forget I brought it up, alright? It's not really relevant here. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 11:24:02
Nope, sorry, Lou, libel law just doesn’t work that way. It wouldn’t matter if the derogatory words appeared on an Internet mental-health forum or tumbled from the lips of Bill O’Reilly. Libel is about whether a published statement is TRUE and believable to readers – and if it turns out to be untrue, what were the mitigating circumstances under which the error occurred. It is NOT about words that merely might hurt feelings. Never was, and never will be. Any libel case where the plaintiff is nonplussed over being called an “idiot” or a “fruitcake” is going nowhere fast – no matter how upset the plaintiff is. The judge would give the jury specific instructions as to what constitutes libel and what does not. Sympathetic or not, the members of that jury are bound by law to follow those instructions, or else you end up with a mistrial or strong grounds for an appeal. Unless a “reasonable person” might actually be led to believe by the published work that the person being ridiculed is ACTUALLY a “fruitcake” or is GENUINELY a “pig eater,” you just don’t have a case. You wouldn’t even have a case if someone used that most reprehensible of terms, n****r, to describe an African-American. Name-calling, no matter how vile, doesn’t add up to libel.
All that said, my explanation of libel law was only meant to answer your query about what constitutes libel in the first place, since a number of people here seemed confused regarding the issue. It really has little to do with this site. Dr. Bob HAS made name-calling an offense here, as is his right. I do think he gets carried away with the “profanity” thing (I mean, seriously, “fr*g” is considered profane ?! We used to say that in fourth grade). But he and I hashed that out a while back, and the discussion ended with the classic “Bobism”: “Let’s agree to disagree.”
Which kind of spontaneously leads me to toss out this question to everyone for the fun of it: What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
Posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 15:21:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
> What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
>Can Bob's deferring to another person an explanation the rational for his actions be a Bobism, Atticus? If so, anything by Haim Weinberg is a Bobism.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:17:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
>and the discussion ended with the classic “Bobism”: “Let’s agree to disagree.” Which kind of spontaneously leads me to toss out this question to everyone for the fun of it: What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
Oh Atticus, you are not allowed to be blocked ever again because you are just too funny! My favourite at the moment is:
'technology is not always the answer'
- though that might not be an exact quote, and I think maybe it is the context or my warped sense of humour that makes that one funny really :-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 19:13:30
In reply to The Book of Bob » Atticus, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:17:08
My favorite (Thanks Zen)
Please don't accuse anyone here of causing millions to die.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 7, 2004, at 21:35:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
Once upon a time in a far away country there lived a child who took everything literally.
He was named Bob....
even as a child everyone called him Dr. Bob.
He was a sweet child.
He loved to sit on the gray sidewalk during the day and watch the ants.
If he got bored he would move to his second favorite thing and that was watching the bees.
Next the birds.
Then the stars.
He was always looking.
One day he discovered a box.
It was square and had a long chord.
He took the cord and plugged it into the wall.
Worlds opened up for him.
He was stunned and couldn't look away.
His mother tried to tempt him with delicious food she cooked.
His father offered to play baseball with him.
He could barely answer his parents and they tried to pull him away from the awful box.
Their attempts were futile.
Soon his life was only the box and all the little lines written all over the surface.
He had no real friends.
He only communicated with these virtual people inside the box.
His parents wanted to take him to their family doctor.
But Bob said no.
No I am the doctor.
His parents were gentle people.
They eased away from this little boy who would not leave the box and would not get help.Atticus is this the story you are talking about?
Jai
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:43:04
In reply to Re: Bob » Atticus, posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 15:21:07
Hi Toph,
I'd think so. I've been treated to a Haim Weinberg reference personally. So it's fair to say that a particular way of responding to someone's post without really responding to the post is Bobistic. ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:48:55
In reply to Re: The Book of Bob » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 19:13:30
LOL. I missed that one! Did Pol Pot used to be a Babbler or something? ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:59:49
In reply to I wonda wonda who...WHO wrote the book of Bob?, posted by Jai Narayan on December 7, 2004, at 21:35:36
I'd best refrain from comment on that story. Too many straight lines that could spark a snarky refrain. :) But both you and Susan47 HAVE been punished by Dr. Bob for not covering your "@ss". This leads me to think of the ubiquitous Bobism that begins something like, "I hate to be a prude, but ..." Ta. ;) Atticus, skating on thin ice as usual and groovin' on it
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 23:50:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
> Would I be able to turn the automatic censor off and continue to handle the insertion of asterisks myself?
Sure, but then you wouldn't get any warnings:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425592.html
> What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.”
A sequel, maybe, to:
The Bob Book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440503124/drbobsvirte00-20Bob
Posted by Atticus on December 8, 2004, at 0:02:16
In reply to Re: automatic asterisking, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 23:50:18
OK, I can live with that. Speaking of "profanity," I just noticed that Phil has become yet another casualty of your war on "@ss"ing, over on PB Writing. Jai, Susan47, now Phil. Will this carnage never end? Oh, the humanity! ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 8, 2004, at 0:23:36
In reply to The Book of Bob » Atticus, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:17:08
Hi Alex,
"Technology is not always the answer"?! Well, b*llocks. There goes my plan to replace Dr. Bob with an android who curses like a sailor. But perhaps I've been too harsh on his War On "@ss"ing. The ability to resist using the word "@ss" is all that separates us from the lower animals. With chimps, it's just "@ss this" and "@ss that." Next thing you know, they're hurling their own feces at innocent zoo-goers. "@ss" is clearly a "gateway" to more serious lapses in civility. Or something. ;) Atticus
Posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:40:08
In reply to Re: The Book of Bob » alexandra_k, posted by Atticus on December 8, 2004, at 0:23:36
Pleased to meet you Atticus, not sure whether we've really met properly before :-)
Posted by All Done on December 8, 2004, at 0:56:28
In reply to I wonda wonda who...WHO wrote the book of Bob?, posted by Jai Narayan on December 7, 2004, at 21:35:36
> He could barely answer his parents and they tried to pull him away from the awful box.
> Their attempts were futile.
> Soon his life was only the box and all the little lines written all over the surface.
> He had no real friends.
> He only communicated with these virtual people inside the box.
> His parents wanted to take him to their family doctor.Jai,
Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but this bothers me a bit. I don't know if I would say it is uncivil, but at the very least it doesn't feel supportive, IMO. Now, I suppose we can all assume Dr. Bob is not here for support, but how do we ever really know why any poster is here and aren't we are expected to be supportive of everyone? If this was written about any other poster, would it have been acceptable? (Maybe Dr. Bob could answer that?)
Dr. Bob seems to be somewhat forgiving of attacks on him and to some degree, I suppose he has to be since this board is, in part, for challenging his decisions. To me, though, this feels more personal than "admin".
Jai, I love to read your posts and I hope I have not offended you. Maybe I just have a stick up my @ss.
Laurie
Posted by Atticus on December 8, 2004, at 9:29:56
In reply to oh, he he he » Atticus, posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:40:08
I can't remember if we've "properly" met either. But in case we haven't, the pleasure's all mine. Ta. ;) Atticus
Go forward in 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.