![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 33. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Greg on January 17, 2001, at 14:42:52
Hi Bob,
I only have one comment about this whole thing. If you are going to name someone from the board, it might be nice to e-mail them and let them know about it. Not to ask permission mind you, but just as a courtesy to give them an opportunity to read it? You may have done so, and if you did, never mind... Other than that, you are well within your rights to publish anything you want. I actually think it would be kind of cool to get something I've written be published by you (especially now that my mania is under control :)
That being said, I tried to access the article using the link you posted, but I keep getting a message that the server is not available. Is the article available anywhere else? If not, could it be e-mailed to me? I'm really interested in reading it. I'd be glad to pay for it...do you take American Express?
Thanks,
Greg> > I thought this board was for support, not to be written up as guinea pigs for some study!!!!!!!!!
>
> It *is* for support and is *not* an experiment in which I'm manipulating anyone or anything. I'm sorry if this caught you by surprise. The possibility of an article is mentioned in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#copyright
>
> And I've even referred before to this specific article:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/31.html
>
> > did his university's IRB approve his eavesdropping on this supposed "support" forum and use our own words in a journal publication!?!?!?
>
> I did contact the IRB about the research project that Bob (not the currently registered Bob, the former one) proposed, but that's all in limbo. The IRB approves research, not publication, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them about this, so I'll do that and try to get an official answer.
>
> > i'm so upset right now. I can't believe this is happening..
>
> Was there something specific that you said, or that I said about you, that you're upset about?
>
> > so I guess Dr. Bob has the right to take everything posted here and throw it into a book and make a few thousand dollars off of us. what a sad thought.
>
> FYI, as far as making money "off of you", I've also been considering for a while having a charge be part of the registration process (and therefore required to post)...
>
> Please redirect any follow-ups to this to Psycho-Babble Administration. You can do that at the top of the confirmation page, after you first submit a post. Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 17, 2001, at 15:50:41
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs?? » Dr. Bob, posted by Greg on January 17, 2001, at 14:42:52
From what I understand, no one was named using the names they use, aliases were always used.
I too would love to read it, but no credit cards!! (They've all been chopped up!)
nikki x
Posted by shellie on January 17, 2001, at 16:38:45
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs??, posted by NikkiT2 on January 17, 2001, at 15:50:41
> From what I understand, no one was named using the names they use, aliases were always used.
> nikki x
I only thing that concerns me at all is the use of names. If the name Vesper was used--that is the name the person used in his posts; so if others (outside PB) know him as vesper, his anonymity is not being protected.
Dr. Bob, are you using our screen names? If so I'll like to change mine.
Hopefully, that is not the case. Please tell us. Otherwise, you are, of course, free to use our posts. It would be nice if you publish something concerning PB if you would tell us. Maybe you don't because some babblers might find it upsetting to read what they've written with your analysis?
Thanks, Shellie
Posted by Cam W. on January 17, 2001, at 16:58:48
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs?? » Dr. Bob, posted by Greg on January 17, 2001, at 14:42:52
Greg - I know we're pigs, but I didn't think we were the guinea kind. I wonder if Dr.Bob has any say on whether he can post the article on his site. I got into the journal site, but they only have October's issue and YA GOTTA PAY FOR THE ARTICLE. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for the movie.
Oops, damn, this was supposed to go under PSB. I'll get it straight some day.
BTW - "Greg & Cam's Excellent Psycho-Babble"? Yup, we're not only pigs, but conceited one's at that. - Cam (the guy who gets relegated to co-star status).
Dr.Bob - If you happen to read this; is there anyway that the journal would allow you to post the article on this site?
Posted by michael on January 17, 2001, at 19:36:44
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs?? » Greg, posted by Cam W. on January 17, 2001, at 16:58:48
I accidentally posted this to the other site before I read dr bob's direction to send further posts here. So I'm posting it here now, sorry for the mix-up.
I'm with Scott, everybody take a deep breath... As far as the previous comments in the thread, just a couple quick thoughts/my 2 cents' worth:
>
> First, it seems to me that the postings sent here are about as public as it gets. It's the internet. Anyone in the entire world can read this.
>
> Second, this is nonetheless a fairly anonymous medium, unless you choose to really identify yourself. If you feel that you've compromised your anonymity (by choice or otherwise) I would hope you wouldn't post anything that you wouldn't want printed in a newspaper with your name attached to it. I don't mean to be insensitive, but that would just seem to be common sense.
>
> Finally, as for the following line of argument:
>
> "...unless *I*, as the AUTHOR of my material, CHOOSE to give permission for my words to be used elsewhere, they can not be..."
>
> I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that we have all choosen to grant that permission to Dr. Bob... As has been noted by others earlier in this thread, it is posted at the top of the page: "Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish. Please be civil. "
>
> In other words, if you submit a post, you implicitly grant Dr. Bob permission to use it.
>
> Once again, I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that if one agrees to something w/o having read it, that is your choice, & your responsibility. You can't hold someone else responsible for your actions/choices (or lack thereof).
>
> I hope I haven't offended anyone, and sincerely, I appologize if I have. It just seems pretty straight forward to me.
>
> One more thought - I would guess that Dr. Bob gets a lot more work than he gets benefit (or money, etc.) from running this site. Any benefit he does get is surely dwarfed by the benefits that we get from this site. It was surely missed while it was down, and I hope it's around for a long time to come. michael
Posted by Abby on January 17, 2001, at 22:07:00
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs??, posted by michael on January 17, 2001, at 19:36:44
Just to be clear about this. I know very little about copyright, but I do know that copyright needs to be asserted in advance by someone claiming it. Also, not all words are copyrightable e.g. you can't copyright the news.
Beyond that, we know that Dr. Bob is in an academic post and needs to get tenure etc. We've gotten a fair amount of free medical advice from which we benefit. Also, maybe some psychiatrists will gain a deeper appreciation for their patients.
Abby
Posted by Cam W. on January 17, 2001, at 22:16:56
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs?? » Greg, posted by Cam W. on January 17, 2001, at 16:58:48
As I have said before, I have acquired more practical knowledge from this site in the last year, than I have in 16 years as a community pharmacist.
Hell, use my name if you want (for what it's worth). I have nothing to hide. As my wife says, "I'm a boring, old married poop." So, I introduce her as my "first wife" and tell people that "my next wife hasn't been born yet."
Anyway, any information that I give on this site can be used by anyone, BUT as a caveat, I'd double check anything I say with the current medical literature. I have been known to make mistakes and do have mental lapses. I do not tell people to change their medications without consulting their doctor first; I do not diagnose; and I certainly won't give information when I know that the person is going to harm themselves or self-medicate without being followed by a medical professional (preferably someone with a medical degree).
I will talk about what current research thinks the drugs are doing and may speculate as to unique mechanisms of action.
First and foremost, I try not to disrupt current therapy (ie do no harm).
In other words, Dr.Bob, use what you want (I can usually reference it for you) however you would like to, of anything that I post (but I'd still like to see that article about PB).
Sincerely (Nah, not really ... more like, blowing my own horn - if only) - Cam
Posted by Shell on January 17, 2001, at 23:23:36
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs?? - use me, posted by Cam W. on January 17, 2001, at 22:16:56
I am really surprised that no one has mentioned that all of this was explained in the FAQs. Right next to the "Submit" button you click to submit a post, is a link to privacy and copyright information. Since it is easily accessible, I won't post it here, but will mention that the policies on privacy and using posted messages were very clearly spelled out.
The first thing I do before I post ANYWHERE online is read the privacy policy. If I have a problem with it, I won't post. If I find it acceptable, I will. Dr. Bob has never made a secret of the fact that he has intended to reserve the right use these posts:
"However, I want to be able to use these posts elsewhere. For example, on my Books page or in an article or something (if I ever get organized).
Therefore, you may submit a message only if you agree to allow me unrestricted use of it. Submitting a message constitutes acceptance of that condition. But you retain the copyright."
NOTHING online is completely private. In addition to the cookies on your machine, your ISP can also monitor what you do (and there are always hackers). As he states in the FAQs, "To be completely safe, you have to abstain.".
Shell
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 18, 2001, at 9:42:29
In reply to Re: We're being used as guinea pigs??, posted by Shell on January 17, 2001, at 23:23:36
Sorry... I'm having ahrd time right now, ad tend to get pretty defensive about things I care about. Dr Bob, in my opinion, gives us this place for US, and it has helped me no end, and given me a number of new, good friends that I now love and care about. I guess seeing someone have a go at Bob, made me all ratty, and I jumped right in and had a go bad - not what I should ahve done.
I hope my apology is read, and taken with the care it is meant.
Nikki xx
Posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 10:31:44
In reply to I would like to apologise..., posted by NikkiT2 on January 18, 2001, at 9:42:29
Nikki,
I don't think you have any need to apologize. Actually I kind of do that a lot too, must be a bipolar thing :-) Judy
Posted by Ted on January 18, 2001, at 13:56:49
In reply to Re: I would like to apologise... » NikkiT2, posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 10:31:44
I agree -- it is a bipolar thing. I have caused myself endless problems in the same way.
Ted
> I don't think you have any need to apologize. Actually I kind of do that a lot too, must be a bipolar thing :-) Judy
Posted by anna78 on January 18, 2001, at 16:16:35
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by Abby on January 17, 2001, at 22:07:00
No, in fact, i have a lawyer friend who tells me that i don't have to assert copyright.. i have it the minute i write these words down. They are mine, to use as I see fit. Only by my agreeing expressly, in writing, otherwise can someone use my words. Dr. Bob's saying otherwise simply doesn't make it so. He's a doc, not a lawyer..personally, i have no problem if the good doctor chooses to do research with people coming here for support. My problem was with the fact that he didn't really say anything about this possibility up-front (to give people the chance to opt-out of his little experiment).. alluding to it and coming out and saying, 'I'm going to write ya'll up in some medical journal' are two different things and Dr. Bob should surely know better.
I'm also concerned by the fact that people's screen names were used in the article, and in fact, an entire poem was published.. whether it was with permission or not, we don't know, 'cuz Dr. Bob hasn't yet said...... still waiting to hear about these two issues before saying anything else.
in the future, I (and i would guess others?) might feel better if it were told to us that we were going to be subjects for some study or something he's writing.... tenure or not, university position or not (this doesn't seem to be a university-based Web site? seems like it's his own personal website)... he should let us know up-front, explicitly.
> Just to be clear about this. I know very little about copyright, but I do know that copyright needs to be asserted in advance by someone claiming it. Also, not all words are copyrightable e.g. you can't copyright the news.
>
> Beyond that, we know that Dr. Bob is in an academic post and needs to get tenure etc. We've gotten a fair amount of free medical advice from which we benefit. Also, maybe some psychiatrists will gain a deeper appreciation for their patients.
>
> Abby
Posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 17:27:13
In reply to I would like to apologise..., posted by NikkiT2 on January 18, 2001, at 9:42:29
Hi Nikki,
I meant to ask you if I could use 'ratty' and 'right nutter' next time I see my shrink, probably in an hour in my mood- I totally love those words!!!- Judy
Posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 17:30:12
In reply to ps to Nikki, posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 17:27:13
Or are they copywrited? Sorry, I promise to stop :-)
Posted by Rzip on January 18, 2001, at 19:28:42
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by anna78 on January 18, 2001, at 16:16:35
In the academic world of psychiatry, establishing validity for categorizing illnesses is acknowledged to be extremely challenging. For instance in the DSM-II (1970s), there were eight mood disorder categories. In the current in-use version of DSM-IV however, the figure for mood-disorder categories reach well into the 2,000s. It would be great if the advances in relating psychiatric diagnoses to direct concrete etiologic causes would have progressed at such a rapid rate:-) Psychiatric illnesses probably will never be classified at such a high validity as that of the somatic diseases. As one of my professors pointed out in class today, "How does your dopamine system feel today?" is a impossible and therefore silly question to ask any patient. On the other hand, it is very appropriate to ask a patient with a broken arm how his/her arm is feeling.
Now, you ask yourself, what does this have to do with Dr. Bob's article (which I have not been able to read, yet). Well, my answer is that it has everything to do with Dr. Bob's reason for writting and submitting the article. You see, my friends, there is no finer and purer intention to be a researcher than the devotion to the life of the mind on the part of the scientist.
I admire Dr. Bob from both an affective and an intellectual frame of mind. It is from this intellectual orientation that I am writing to you guys today. The field of psychiatry is challenging to work in because of the great amount of indirect approaches associated with it. The only way we can really study the mind is to surgically implant lesions and electrodes in the mind of the subjects of interest. Since it would not be ethical to do this in human subjects, we will have to resign ourselves to observing the correlates or actions deriving from the mind.
What I wish to point out is that I observe Dr. Bob's intention for establishing PB to be purely and solely based on his intellectual devotion to his field. Like I said before, I have not read the article, however, I am going to assume that the theme of the article is to illustrate the effects of supportive or positive experiences have on depressions or other affective disorders. There is an attachment theory out there that runs something like this: Early negative or aggressive pattern of relationships steming from the parents to that of the infant imprints biological stimulants within the infant's brain such that upon puberty, the biological signals will produce the on-set of depression. The exception to this rule is that if the infant receives positive (supportive) re-inforcement growing up, the biological aspects of the brain can be "re-wired" to off-set the bad family influence. So, I kind of see Dr. Bob's PB site as the reinforcement of the set of positive/supportive experiences that is necessary to SLOWLY affect the biological aspects of the brain. In doing so, whether or not my assumptions are valid, Dr. Bob has shown to be a good role model by actively living out the Life of the Mind; which in my mind (pun not intended), equates to a good researcher and more importantly, a valuable human being.
Finally, I would like to express my shock to the lack of appreciation for the means and service that Dr. Bob has provided.
Instead, we should be extending a sincerely Thank You and Congratulations to Dr. Bob for his work.
Posted by name on January 18, 2001, at 20:43:31
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by anna78 on January 18, 2001, at 16:16:35
Copyrights are defined by U.S. law as exclusive rights of the author, whether they are registered or not, and whether the author is identified or not. “Unrestricted use” as reserved in the Psycho-Babble copyright FAQ is not defined in the Title 17 chapters on copyright law.
The assertion of a right to unrestricted use likely could mean one of two things; it would either be a parallel exclusive right, which would be an unlimited right to sell the material in its entirety anywhere, or it would mean fair use as defined in U.S. copyright law. Unrestricted use by the first definition would, in effect, dilute the exclusive right of the author. A court might construe that the author and the original publisher with an unrestricted right are business partners, or a court might decide that a right to unrestricted use is nothing more than the uses defined by copyright law as fair use.Fair Use is defined as follows:
_____________________________________107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
_______________________________________It is probably safe to say, the opinions expressed here, i.e. “We like Dr. Bob, so he can do whatever he wants with our posts, and with anybody else’s” would not carry much weight in a copyright case, even as amicus briefs to the court. An argument might be constructed that the site is educational, which could potentially protect his use of archives as fair use should he later decide to collect payments from those who read and post at the site. Whether use of the material in other publications is fair use would be determined by whether the material is used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
It is also probably safe to say that few if any people who post here, without the intervention of an advocacy group, will have the financial where-with-all to retain a qualified attorney to protect whatever exclusive right they might have to their work published here. The real questions are those of perception and reputation.
* Do other licensed mental health practitioners offer on the Internet a supportive and educational forum while at the same time publishing comments, criticisms or research based on the contributions of forum participants?
* Do other universities allow staff members to use electronic forums in such a manner?
* Do Dr. Hsuing’s published articles comprise the product of research, and do they include study of forums in which he is not a participant or moderator?
* Does his preference for publishing material from forums in which he played a guiding role enhance or detract from the credibility of his commentary?
* Does his use of material go beyond use of what is published by users on-line to include private information provided in the registration process?
* If he learned elsewhere of information about a person who posted or was mentioned on-line, would he associate in a publication information from external sources and material posted on-line?
* How does the lack of accurate information beyond the on-line self-reports of contributors effect the study of on-line clinical interaction?
* Is information published on-line about third parties fairly used as source material for secondary publication (This might be the most likely source of libelous violations of privacy, because most people who write at Psycho-Babble are not experienced writers educated in the legal standards that govern when a third party is or is not a public figure available for public discussion. No person may grant use of material about third parties to which they are not entitled in the first place.)Discussion of these questions might be relevant at this site; Dr. Hsuing has volunteered to consult with a research ethics panel at the University where he is employed. This suggests that he is somewhat sensitive to criticisms returned here and is interested in his employer's opinions of his publications that refer to his on-line clinical activity. (He has referred, in another on-line publication, to Psycho-Babble as a clinical setting.) The larger question is not whether staff at the University of Chicago, or the majority of participants at Psycho-Babble approve of Dr. Hsuing’s multiple uses of a clinical on-line forum; he is likely to be treated favorably in his own camp. The larger question is whether the academic, research and clinical communities at large approve of on-line message forums being used by their managers as both clinical settings and as sources for published commentary.
Doctors have historically published case histories based on the intimate details of their patients’ afflictions. Surgical patients at teaching hospitals are likely to find themselves cut open before a gallery of students. The ethics that have evolved governing informed consent in such cases will likely effect the reputation of doctors and institutions that take a leading role in using on-line clinical activity as source material for secondary publication.
An overview of copyright law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.htmlThe law:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.html#chapter1Sec. 106 – copyrights defined as exclusive
Sec. 107 -– fair use defined
Sec. 302 (C ) -– pseudonymous works protectedA listing of other mental health discussion boards:
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/message.htmlThe author of this commentary releases the following rights beyond those implied in the Psycho-Babble FAQ:
This post may be reproduced anywhere in its entirety and excerpts may be reproduced anywhere provided that the content is not distorted and the true identity of the pseudonymous author is not revealed.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 19, 2001, at 13:04:31
In reply to pps to Nikki, posted by judy1 on January 18, 2001, at 17:30:12
> Or are they copywrited? Sorry, I promise to stop :-)
Just when I was going to post, "no, they're copyrighted"!!! :o)
nice to be able to laugh still!!
N xx
Posted by Neal on January 22, 2001, at 15:44:36
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by anna78 on January 18, 2001, at 16:16:35
I object to the term *guinea pigs*! I prefer to be thought of as a lab rat :-)
Seriously though. I don't understand the reasoning of this privacy issue. Anyone concerned with privacy should pick a screen name unique to this board, and certainly not their real name. Also, all the posts are < already on the internet! >, where they can be read by anybody in the whole world. I'm sure thousands have visited this site, whereas how many people are going to read an obscure scholarly journal.
Having said this, I do think that a lot of people think of this site as a sort of wood-panelled room with a fireplace, where a group of friends share ideas and feelings. I think of it that way too, many times. I think Dr Bob should keep this aspect in mind. But it sometimes comes as a jolt when you realize all the posts are on the Internet, to be read by anybody, mostly good people, but also troublemakers, the drug companies, the DEA, you name it.
I do have a problem with this site. The name. I think the site is neither for *psychos* nor is it a *babble*. And yes, I know that the term *psychobabble* is used in popular usage, and the name is meant to be a light-hearted play on words. But I wonder if the site hasn't outgrown the name, and a more appropriate name, based on the seriousness of the issues involved, isn't in order some day. The word *psycho* has unfortunate connotations, and are we really just *babblers*? The name is humorous, but is the site humorous?
Posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 19:20:39
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by Neal on January 22, 2001, at 15:44:36
> I object to the term *guinea pigs*! I prefer to be thought of as a lab rat :-)
>
> Seriously though. I don't understand the reasoning of this privacy issue. Anyone concerned with privacy should pick a screen name unique to this board, and certainly not their real name. Also, all the posts are < already on the internet! >, where they can be read by anybody in the whole world. I'm sure thousands have visited this site, whereas how many people are going to read an obscure scholarly journal.
>
> Having said this, I do think that a lot of people think of this site as a sort of wood-panelled room with a fireplace, where a group of friends share ideas and feelings. I think of it that way too, many times. I think Dr Bob should keep this aspect in mind. But it sometimes comes as a jolt when you realize all the posts are on the Internet, to be read by anybody, mostly good people, but also troublemakers, the drug companies, the DEA, you name it.
>James here.....
Good points. People "seem" to be conserned about
security but give out their real names often. Security starts with the user, some of the most
effective methods to be safe and secure are a users responsibility. All the encryption in the world is of no good if, like this board, everyone can view it and real names are used. To me this is basic common sence but in truth it seems many do not get this.Perhaps a short statement, when one first signs up, and gets a user/passwd, about this board being a "public place" and therefor the need to not use your real name if you don't want others to be able to assoc. posts with real people.
James
Posted by shellie on January 23, 2001, at 20:45:08
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by stjames on January 23, 2001, at 19:20:39
> Perhaps a short statement, when one first signs up, and gets a user/passwd, about this board being a "public place" and therefor the need to not use your real name if you don't want others to be able to assoc. posts with real people.
To disagree with you James, the responsibility of anonymity is the ABSOLUTE responsiblity of the researcher.
A name that may not be a real name, but may be a nickname, known to others. While, yes, the poster takes his/her changes with the chosen screen name on the internet in general, that does not take the responsiblity off the researcher to do all possible to protect the identity of his subjects. My guess is that if Dr. Bob writes again about PB (and I hope he will), he will never again use a screen name. Shellie
Posted by Rzip on January 23, 2001, at 22:18:42
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright » stjames, posted by shellie on January 23, 2001, at 20:45:08
> To disagree with you James, the responsibility of anonymity is the ABSOLUTE responsiblity of the researcher.
> A name that may not be a real name, but may be a nickname, known to others. While, yes, the poster takes his/her changes with the chosen screen name on the internet in general, that does not take the responsiblity off the researcher to do all possible to protect the identity of his subjects. My guess is that if Dr. Bob writes again about PB (and I hope he will), he will never again use a screen name. ShellieUntil proven otherwise, let us assume that Dr. Bob e-mailed Vesper and informed her of the excerpt inclusion.
I would be really upset if he did not do that because I believe in respecting subject's autonomy and henceforth, implied consent should be given.
This is a very complex issue. I think Dr. Bob needed to include the screen name to validate the site and its posters. I really can not think of any other reason why he felt the need to use a real screen name. Having validated the site once, I do not think he would need to do so again. I really do not know.
I am as shocked as you guys are that Vesper is actually a real poster. My apologies to her for being insensitive to that possibility in a previous post.
- Rzip
Posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 11:28:53
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright » stjames, posted by shellie on January 23, 2001, at 20:45:08
> To disagree with you James, the responsibility of anonymity is the ABSOLUTE responsiblity of the researcher.
> A name that may not be a real name, but may be a nickname, known to others. While, yes, the poster takes his/her changes with the chosen screen name on the internet in general, that does not take the responsiblity off the researcher to do all possible to protect the identity of his subjects. My guess is that if Dr. Bob writes again about PB (and I hope he will), he will never again use a screen name. ShellieJames here....
I was not talking about the research issue, just internet security and posting to the list in gereral. Since few of us has seen this article
any speculation on security issues is moot. It is
my understanding he just used first letters; this seems fine to me.James
Posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 14:16:14
In reply to Innocent until proven otherwise, posted by Rzip on January 23, 2001, at 22:18:42
> I am as shocked as you guys are that Vesper is actually a real poster. My apologies to her for being insensitive to that possibility in a previous post.
>
> - RzipJames here....
I was also shocked that anyone would sugest Dr Bob made up Vesper. Common sence says that given the nature of this board (mental illness) pleanty
of crisis will happen. Not to mention that it is unethical to do this.James
Posted by shellie on January 24, 2001, at 15:03:09
In reply to Re: Innocent until proven otherwise, posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 14:16:14
> > I am as shocked as you guys are that Vesper is actually a real poster. My apologies to her for being insensitive to that possibility in a previous post.
> >
> > - Rzip
>
> James here....
>
> I was also shocked that anyone would sugest Dr Bob made up Vesper. Common sence says that given the nature of this board (mental illness) pleanty
> of crisis will happen. Not to mention that it is unethical to do this.
>
> JamesJames, I believe you have misunderstood. I think Rzip (who has read the article) was shocked that a real handle was used, not that Vesper himself was quoted. Look back on Zrip's previous posts, on both this board and psycho-social babble. If I am not correct, Zrip, please clarify. Shellie
Posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 20:21:23
In reply to Re: Innocent until proven otherwise » stjames, posted by shellie on January 24, 2001, at 15:03:09
> > > I am as shocked as you guys are that Vesper is actually a real poster. My apologies to her for being insensitive to that possibility in a previous post.
> > >
> > > - Rzip
> >
> > James here....
> >
> > I was also shocked that anyone would sugest Dr Bob made up Vesper. Common sence says that given the nature of this board (mental illness) pleanty
> > of crisis will happen. Not to mention that it is unethical to do this.
> >
> > James
>
> James, I believe you have misunderstood. I think Rzip (who has read the article) was shocked that a real handle was used, not that Vesper himself was quoted. Look back on Zrip's previous posts, on both this board and psycho-social babble. If I am not correct, Zrip, please clarify. Shellie
James here.....Who knows ! I no longer care ! I not going to make any mor comments untill I see a article, anything else is hearsay and pointless (at least for me) to discuss.
James
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.