![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Cam W. on January 24, 2001, at 23:29:26
In reply to Re: Innocent until proven otherwise, posted by stjames on January 24, 2001, at 20:21:23
James - I will be at the University giving a lecture tomarrow. I'll get the "guy in the stacks" that I know to use his online password to print me a copy of this journal if the library doesn't have it. (He seems to think I'm cool since I showed him an article in a journal about the real Patch Adams a few years back and seems to enjoy when I give him challenges). I'll post a synopsis tomarrow night unless: a) the residents tear me apart after the presentation on therapeutic alliance I am giving in the afternoon, b) the U of A doesn't subscribe to the journal, or c) my "stacks guy" has the day off. I've still have $15 or so left on my copycard, so I will print it off and give a sort of abbreviated abstract version of the stuff we're interested in (eg who gets named and who gets flamed). - Cam
;^P
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 1:40:13
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.
For a while now, the registration page has said, under where you enter a name, "Does not have to be your real name; consider your privacy."
https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/signup.pl
--------
> My guess is that if Dr. Bob writes again about PB (and I hope he will), he will never again use a screen name.
My guess is that you're right. :-)
> are you using our screen names? If so I'll like to change mine.
You might feel more comfortable doing that anyway, just re-register under a different (and unused) name.
Bob
Posted by Noa on January 30, 2001, at 18:23:51
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright » stjames, posted by shellie on January 23, 2001, at 20:45:08
Shellie, perhaps you are right when it comes to using posts in research, but in terms of posting personal info on the internet, like on this board, people really do need to use good judgment.
Like someone said earlier, it can feel like we are in a private room with a fireplace, but this is not how it is. As we can tell from the stats written up in the article, many more people visit to read than actually post, so this is a very public "park wall" (as Nikki put it--good analogy!).
Unfortunately, at least one person here that I care about was hurt terribly by having made a mistake like this, and I hope people do take care to protect their personal identifying info.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 22:48:46
In reply to Re: Guinea pigs and their words--no copyright, posted by Noa on January 30, 2001, at 18:23:51
> Unfortunately, at least one person here that I care about was hurt terribly by having made a mistake like this
Here?
Bob
Posted by Noa on January 31, 2001, at 10:37:44
In reply to Re: hurt terribly by mistake, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 22:48:46
Yes, it was someone who used to be here a lot and isn't anymore, or perhaps is, but changed their name.
They left because they had their privacy invaded by someone reading here who figured out who they were and used the info against them.
I miss that person, and wish I knew if they were here in another guise.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 31, 2001, at 20:20:14
In reply to Re: hurt terribly by mistake, posted by Noa on January 31, 2001, at 10:37:44
> Yes, it was someone who used to be here a lot and isn't anymore, or perhaps is, but changed their name.
OK, I remember now. :-(
Bob
Posted by ms. b. on February 1, 2001, at 3:04:10
In reply to Re: Using screen names, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 1:40:13
Let me say before I jump into this already muddied water, I read Dr. Bob's article today, easily downloadable in PDF format. It's very well-done, and is part of a new area of research on the internet and its impact on social interaction, specifically group-therapy models of support and education.
So, in plain Latin, Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware! Don't post if you MUST HAVE and want to maintain total and complete rights to your own ideas and wording, etc. It's like the old bumper sticker abortion-rights folks, myself included, find so right on: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" Don't want Dr. Bob to use your words or handle? Don't post! and stay safe from (some imagined) harm.
Sorry in advance, by the way, if this offends anyone...
I personally thank Dr. Bob for everything he has done for this community of souls, who obviously NEED such a forum. Where else can we find pretty reliable information, solace and support, laughs, and yet another venue for compulsive, late night/early morning searching, reading, writing, etc. etc. ? I ask you...
Copyright law, even before the internet, has always been a very complex set of regulations and restrictions. The purpose of copyright initially was to spawn creativity (as a "national interest"), and thus to protect writers, inventors, musicians, researchers, when they published or put their work into the public realm. In my line of work - museums and other archives wishing to hold onto their rights as owners of works of art or other images in their collections - we hang onto the fact that so far, only one or two real image copyright infringement copyright cases have come up (cf: the famous Bridgeman case), and no word yet about fair use of images which are copied from books and then used for educational purposes, or are altered and used in a different way, etc. So until a matter comes up in a court of law, we wait and see.
Dr. Bob's caveats at registration and elsewhere on this web site are enough, IMO, to protect him in a court case, should anyone go totally gonzo (sorry), and try to sue. His research is valid and important, and he is not trying to rip anybody off, or use them for his "little experiments." This is the stuff of paranoia, and if you're susceptible to such musings, stay off the internet...
Please! Enough! Somebody help me, I can't shut up! (.....)
:-]
B.
> > 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.
>
> For a while now, the registration page has said, under where you enter a name, "Does not have to be your real name; consider your privacy."
>
> https://dr-bob.securesites.com/cgi-bin/pb/signup.pl
>
> --------
>
> > My guess is that if Dr. Bob writes again about PB (and I hope he will), he will never again use a screen name.
>
> My guess is that you're right. :-)
>
> > are you using our screen names? If so I'll like to change mine.
>
> You might feel more comfortable doing that anyway, just re-register under a different (and unused) name.
>
> Bob
Posted by Adam on February 5, 2001, at 21:09:59
In reply to Re: hurt terribly by mistake, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2001, at 22:48:46
Hey, I don't mind being a guinea pig.
After all, being a guinea pig saved my life. You just have to be jucicious about who and what you run around on the little wheel for.
I read the article and liked it, and was pleased to see a little exerpt of something I had written once being used, though it wasn't particularly "meaty" ;-). Glad to contribute, all the same. I read the website disclaimer long ago, and understood that my words here belonged to Dr. Bob. I'm not well-versed in all the legal facts surrounding copywrite, etc., or if in fact I have any legal claim to these words, regardless of disclaimers. I guess I don't really care, in this case.
Anyway, what's this about people getting hurt badly? Is there a way to elaborate without revealing too much? It's just that I posted some info. a while ago in psycho-soc. babble that I wish I hadn't, after the fact, essentially because I was too vivid in my descriptions of the scenerio. It made someone *I* care about a bit nervous, and, even though it's been a few months, and nothing has come of it, I still wonder at times...
Though, reassuringly I've never read of a specific example of someone having anonymous or semi-anonymous info. they posted coming back to haunt them later. But, in light of my earlier transgression, I am a bit curious about the implications, etc.
Well, if it's too difficult, I understand. Thanks,
Adam
> > Unfortunately, at least one person here that I care about was hurt terribly by having made a mistake like this
>
> Here?
>
> 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.