![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 63. Go back in thread:
Posted by AKC on July 22, 2001, at 21:08:15
In reply to Re: About .03 percent of PB posters are trolls » JohnS, posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 18:49:23
>
> Perhaps you could better serve society by volunteering at a soup kitchen or helping the elderly. I know that you will reply, listing all of your magnanimous achievements, but guess what...we don't care.
>
> Why don't you just leave us alone? Do you have any reason for bothering us, or are you just trying to prove to us that you are a troll? Surely you can't be concerned about Dr.Bob getting into trouble.
>
> Don't go away mad; just go away. Thanks.I am utterly amazed that he has taken to counting the number of posts, pulled out his calculator, and come up with this percentage.
What is the opposite of preaching to the choir? Is this not what is occurring here?
I almost asked my intellectual property expert in my firm what law has developed as far as restraining orders and the internet. It would be very complex given that the poster is problably in one state (or country) and Dr. Bob is in Illinois. And it is not my place, but instead it is Dr. Bob's as far as how to deal with this person's unwanted presence on this board. I still may ask, out of cat-like curiousity.
This is Dr. Bob's site. It is his property - he sets the rules. And he gets to dictate who gets to participate. Like any group setting with a moderator, the moderator is in fact the dictator, no matter how much the group may have impute. It is sadly ironic for a person so set on ensuring that "rules" are followed to not follow the rules here. Obviously, something along the line of "two wrongs make a right" is going on here. A lesson I learned both early in life and early in law school is this is not a true statement. It may win the day for a moment, but it almost always comes back to haunt you at a later date.
I agree with you whole heartedly Cam W. that there are so many other things in the world that a person's energy could be put into to make the world a better place. Let's say that .03 percent of the posts here violate the copyright laws - something I beg to differ with. Really, so what - the world's infrastructure will not crumble. Instead of wasting so much energy worrying about this, we all, myself included, probably should spend our time on something much more important - such as spending time with the elderly or at a homeless shelter as you suggested, Cam. However, as for me, I am afraid I will myself continue to obsess over my many character defects and continue to read most of the posts here on Psycho-Babble (may have become a tad bit addicted in the past few weeks!). And unfortunately will continue to rise to the bait.
Your resident bulldog.
Posted by stjames on July 22, 2001, at 23:48:14
In reply to About .03 percent of PB posts violate copyrights, posted by JohnS on July 22, 2001, at 17:39:28
> > You are talking about a rare event that occurs on PB.
>
> It is a rare event, yes. It occurs on PB, yes. It is rare in the genre of medical discussion boards, because most board operators do not allow it, they say so in their FAQ, and they delete offending posts when they occur. It occurs on PB because a person who apparently operates this board without benefit of legal counsel allows it to occur.
>
> > there will always be people who do not follow fair use guidelines
>
> Then let's encourage the web-master here to delete their unfair postings?
>
> > you seem to want to make dire predictions for what will happen to the internet based on 20-something articles improperly posted on PB in the past 2 years
james here....All of this falls under "Fair Use" per this test:
< Quote >
The four fair use factors:
1.What is the character of the use?
2.What is the nature of the work to be used?
3.How much of the work will you use?
4.What effect would this use have on the market for the
original or for permissions if the use were widespread?< end quote >
( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )
Posted by stjames on July 23, 2001, at 0:01:43
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2001, at 14:23:28
> The thing is, we don't have people like that coming through for Grand Rounds like we have the other types of experts... Does anyone know anyone they could invite?
>
> BobJames here....
Does uchicago have a law school ? While the whole
issue of copyright and the internet is a big issue, you
could pose specific examples of things that are likely
to come up on this board.james
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 16:04:56
In reply to Re: About .03 percent of PB posters are trolls » JohnS, posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 18:49:23
> And some trolls cannot take a hint (hint, hint) ... "Advance the discussion?"...your "discussion" is more of a rant. What do you care what happens on this site? You are not even wanted here; but you keep finding backdoors to get in, even though you have been repeated blocked.
Sorry, but we've been through this before, so I think I finally need to block you. AKC has referred to taking the "bait", if you do, you can get hooked. I'll unblock you after a week. I'll have to do it manually, so email me if I forget.
> It seems to me that someone who has been banned from a site and refuses to remain banned is breaking the law.
I think that's wishful thinking. Besides, whatever the laws are, some people will be able to skirt the edge.
> I know that trolls love this sort of post, because it makes them feel self-important; that they are able to bother other people.
And therefore the prudent course of action is?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 17:26:16
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by stjames on July 23, 2001, at 0:01:43
> Does uchicago have a law school ?
Hmm, maybe I'm spending too much time in cyberspace. :-) In fact, we do, just down the street, and there are a couple people I could try...
Bob
Posted by AKC on July 23, 2001, at 18:18:35
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 17:26:16
In fact, U of C's law school is consistently ranked in the top 5 nationally - little conservative for my taste. :)
But, that could make for interesting discussion on copyright issues and free speech!AKC
Posted by Willow on July 23, 2001, at 21:35:28
In reply to Re: blocked for one week » Cam W., posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 16:04:56
Jeepers Boss above! Cam offers much more than this other poster in the way of support versus harrasment. (I'm not trying to discount the other souls motives.) I'll try to play the saviour, block me and let Cam stay. You'll be doing everyone a service including myself.
Posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
In reply to Re: blocked for one week, posted by Willow on July 23, 2001, at 21:35:28
Guess I'm just being canadian here again. I can never figure out what everyone is getting so pissed about. I must be dumb.I hate to see the discord though.
"weeping" Tina
Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc? Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc? Just a thought........
> Jeepers Boss above! Cam offers much more than this other poster in the way of support versus harrasment. (I'm not trying to discount the other souls motives.) I'll try to play the saviour, block me and let Cam stay. You'll be doing everyone a service including myself.
Posted by Willow on July 24, 2001, at 21:09:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
Tina
Maybe once the smog clears the thinking will get clearer. Though are we being partial because it is one of our own that has been banned or is it that he just speaks our everyday polite frank language?
ewww, would I ever like to use proper pronouns.
or perhaps our good quality weed just makes us more laid back? I don't inhale so it could just the aroma!
Whistling Willow
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
> Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
> Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
But why Cam?
Willow
looking for answers
Posted by tina on July 25, 2001, at 20:54:44
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
I don't envy your position doc.
Too bad we can't keep out the "bad apples"
Why do they continue to come back I wonder? What is their motivation?
a confused tina
> > Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
>
> The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
>
> > Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
>
> I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
> But why Cam?
Because of what he posted?
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
> > But why Cam?
>
> Because of what he posted?
>
> BobThe truth?! Sometimes it hurts, but is good to hear for all concerned.
Posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
> I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
Noa
You are so right, but can't we accept Cam with this trait. I'm sure he's aware of it. I haven't followed the whole thread, like in real life I have a tendency to jump in and make assumptions with half the facts, but wouldn't it be easier to block the instigator.
BEST REGARDS
Willow
Posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
In reply to Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
james
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:38:44
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
> Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
>
> jamesThank you James. I was wondering if Tina thought that and decided no, she must have just posted after my post. I hope.
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:44:12
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz » Noa , posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
Willow, for me, accepting Cam with any "trait" (I see this more as a behavior than a trait, actually) isn't a problem. I accept Cam. I may be stepping over boundaries here (and Cam, I apologise if I am), but to me, when Cam lets himself get pulled into the nonsense from the instigators, I don't think it is good for Cam, given what he has been through. Having a limit set sometimes is helpful to the person themselves.
As for blocking instigators, absolutely, I would love to see that happen, but as Dr. Bob said earlier in this thread, sometimes it is hard because instigators can be tenacious and know how to skirt the system, by changing identities frequently, by coming up to but not actually crossing the line of incivility, etc. Again, I feel the best course of action is to ignore them. What they want is reaction, so why give it to them?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2001, at 13:41:02
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
> Are you saying Noa is BoBB ?
I assume she meant the other person, "Justice" et al...
Bob
Posted by Pennie Lane on July 30, 2001, at 18:49:04
In reply to Re: new boBB incarnation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2001, at 13:41:02
The University of Texas primer cited above to support the posting of copyrighted articles as a fair use says:
“A nonprofit use of a whole work will weigh somewhat against fair use.”
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htmThe Consortium for Technology in University Systems (whose link was cited) encourages the use of passwords to limit access to articles copied electronically for educational purposes.
“By limiting the range of users who may find the document, the professor can minimize or eliminate any possibility that someone will retrieve the work from the network instead of purchasing a copy.”
http://www.cetus.org/fair6.htmlThis practice of posting whole articles goes against the well-intended efforts of distance-learning professionals to preserve their right to use copyrighted material in limited educational settings. If not illegal, it invites lawmakers to tighten copyright laws. The consortium, in principles intended to protect the right of fair use by universities, says:
“ Higher education has an obligation to educate its constituencies about intellectual properties and about the lawful uses of copyrighted material.”
http://www.cetus.org/fair4.html> ( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )
> The four fair use factors:
> 1.What is the character of the use?This site can be viewed for any purpose by anyone with a web browser. It is not, as exempted in Sec. 110 of the copyright code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html ) “a *regular part of the systematic instructional activities* of … a nonprofit educational institution … primarily for reception in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction, or for reception by persons to whom the transmission is directed because their disabilities or other special circumstances prevent their attendance in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction.”
Sec. 110 allows display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving
apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, *unless - the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public*> 4.What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )If this practice were widespread, it would significantly damage the market for permissions and allow any Internet site that describes itself as educational to post any article it wanted, regardless of copyright restrictions.
Posted by Mark H. on July 31, 2001, at 21:36:29
In reply to More copyright violations, posted by LarryS on July 19, 2001, at 0:39:13
I'm not going to defend the original poster, but I would like to point out that, to someone who was new here and attempting to figure out what is appropriate to post, much of this thread would appear to contradict the broad guidelines of civility and supportiveness advocated by virtually all of us.
There is nothing civil or supportive about calling someone a troll, telling him to go away, asking why he returns when he is unwelcome here, questioning his motives, or otherwise directing blatant hostility towards him.
It's as though, because "boB" has been a focus for anger and hurt in the past (I won't say "caused" -- we're all responsible for our own feelings, right?), the guidelines fly out the window and attacks on him are encouraged, cheered and defended by others.
I see two problems with that. First, if we're only civil and supportive to the people we like, what does that say about us? Second, despite the heated opposition they elicit, outspoken critics of "common wisdom" are often right.
If we lose our compassion and violate our values out of anger, and in the end we turn out to be wrong about our position on the subject matter (which is at least a possibility), then we do a double harm to ourselves and others.
I'm not claiming to be anywhere near mastering the level of equanimity and fairness that I advocate. I'm still at the "bite my tongue and say nothing" phase of integrating my values, and I fail even to do that far too often.
But I have too much respect for many of the people who responded to this thread not to say something. This is just my opinion, of course, and I appreciate your consideration.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by stjames on August 1, 2001, at 11:19:36
In reply to Copyright infringement and fair use, posted by Pennie Lane on July 30, 2001, at 18:49:04
I still maintain that these posts in question fall under "fair use" despite the information you posted. I am going to wait, on this subject, for an expert (if Bob can find one) to comment more on this one. Tired of ankle bitters.
Posted by somebetter on August 1, 2001, at 11:44:11
In reply to Civility and Supportiveness?, posted by Mark H. on July 31, 2001, at 21:36:29
Thank you, Mark. Intelligently put, I wish I could put my feelings on the subject into words so clearly. I'm so glad you wrote.
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.