![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
I somewhat doubt that JasonT (aka SalArmy4Me) has received the "hundreds" of thank you notes he claims (in addition to the 31 he cited), which he says he has have received for looking up information and republishing articles from scientific journals. That would be about one note for each of his posts, which seems unlikely considering that he seldom posts contact information.
Unfortunately, this situation highlights the lack of a hierarchy of credibility in the Internet environment. Though some assert that an open group will post correct information in response to misinformation, the situation demonstrates that anyone with persistence, access to a computer and basic knowledge of search technology can gain recognition as an expert. Some readers might be skeptical, but others tend to unwittingly accept misinformation. As in most media, repetition on the Internet can weigh more heavily than does accuracy or integrity for establishing credibility among a general audience.
Now that Jason's militant ("Army", "enemy") campaign of information warfare has escalated to direct promotion of his sect with the systematic reproduction of copyrighted information from scientific journals, perhaps some here would like to help notify the publishers of these journals about the situation.
A few lengthy excerpts republished here with no commentary, which might violate U.S. and international copyright law include:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76774.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76766.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76763.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76765.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76761.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76860.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76863.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76782.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76768.html(Note the difference between publication of a citation, abstract or commentary, such as at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010828/msgs/76762.html , which is legal, and the wholesale reproduction of substantial text from copyrighted sources, which an expert here recently said is considered by some authority to be a copyright infringement.)
If your are not familiar with ways to contact publishers, it is easy enough. Go to a search engine, such as Google (www.google.com), enter the name of the journal, find a link to the publisher's contact information, and forward to them a link to Sal's posts along with a one line explanation that says an article from their journal has been unfairly reproduced in an effort to promote a Southern California religious sect.
To Jason: remember, effective soldiering requires discipline. A loose cannon can be a liability to its unit.
Posted by stjames on August 29, 2001, at 23:16:40
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
james here....
Excellant !
Posted by Cam W. on August 29, 2001, at 23:30:13
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
Posted by dreamer on August 30, 2001, at 0:11:10
In reply to Re: Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by stjames on August 29, 2001, at 23:16:40
Do u think they can find me suitable accomodation cause i need help!!
I'll shake a tamborine but I only believe in myself.Save me from insecurity.
Posted by shelliR on August 30, 2001, at 0:44:45
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
> Frankly, I do not think it is the policy of the Salvation Army to attack the foundations of international copyright law. I suspect this is the self-chosen tactic of a lone soldier. Your help in stopping the attack can help to preserve the integrity of the publishing industry, and can help protect the valuable charitable work of the Salvation Army.
>
> To Jason: remember, effective soldiering requires discipline. A loose cannon can be a liability to its unit.
Frankly, I think everyone should take a breath and wait for Dr. Bob to handle the situation. He may be out of town, etc. This is not a national security issue and, does not in my opinion call for immediate collective board action.*I* also am extremely offended by Sal's sign off quotes and I'm sure Dr. Bob will step in when he can. I haven't heard , however, any concensus that his journal quoting is unethical. This is an area that still needs to be explored. I feel that to call together "troups" to stop that practice at this moment is really misguided, Penny Lane, because appears to me that it does nothing but further hysterics. The troops that you are rallying are really angry at Sal for other reasons and I feel you are using their anger to control what is quoted on this board. I think Dr. Bob should make that decision, perhaps with input from the membership.
Sal's religious saluatations do disservice to the integrity of this board; I believe organizing a campaign against a group member does likewise, particularly so because of the timing and presumptions.
Shelli
Posted by Jane D on August 30, 2001, at 0:53:24
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
Pennie Lane, Cam, & St James -
I'm a little concerned that this subject has gotten so muddied. It seems as though suddenly, having been angered by one issue, we are all throwing in everything else that has every angered us about Sal, this board and the internet in general. All of these may be worthy of separate consideration. Combining them means they all get discredited. I'll list of few of my concerns by responding to Pennie Lane's post.
PL:
> Unfortunately, this situation highlights the lack of a hierarchy of credibility in the Internet environment. Though some assert that an open group will post correct information in response to misinformation, the situation demonstrates that anyone with persistence, access to a computer and basic knowledge of search technology can gain recognition as an expert. Some readers might be skeptical, but others tend to unwittingly accept misinformation. As in most media, repetition on the Internet can weigh more heavily than does accuracy or integrity for establishing credibility among a general audience.JD:
This isn't exactly unique to the internet. This is a problem with traditional media from television to scientific journals. It does become more interesting now that the internet is so popular. It would be worth discussing on either Social or Tele Babble. You and I might actually end up agreeing on some things. But, if you decide that the risk of misinformation outweighs the good done here, you are condemning not only Sal but most of the rest of us as well. So I think this argument should be kept out of the current series of complaints about Sal.PL:
> Now that Jason's militant ("Army", "enemy") campaign of information warfare has escalated to direct promotion of his sect with the systematic reproduction of copyrighted information from scientific journals, perhaps some here would like to help notify the publishers of these journals about the situation.JD:
This is a bit of an overstatement. Lack of consideration for other posters with different beliefs, yes. Information warfare - come on. I think this confuses two issues. Advocacy of a specific religion and reproduction of copyrighted materials. You don't like either one. They are both done by one person. That does not mean that the articles are reproduced in order to promote the Salvation Army. Complaining to the Salvation Army because Sal misuses articles, or complaining to publishers because you don't like his religious position, is unfair. Nor is it fair to attempt to use religion to inflame people into supporting your views on copyright. This is not an appropriate place for coalition building.
PL:
> Notices to Jason's Southern California "Army" commanders, and to national and international leaders of the Salvation Army might also be helpful.JD:
Helpful in what? If you are a Salvation Army believer that thinks your religion has been misrepresented it might be a good idea. Are you?PL:
> In correspondence with Jason T.’s commanders, one might include links to posts where Jason has attempted to illegally exchange prescription medicationsJD:
This is a mistake that others have made here as well. Everyone was get corrected. So far there have been no reoccurances so presumably this was an isolated incident. Why raise it here.Jane
Posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 1:40:20
In reply to Re: Please reconsider, posted by Jane D on August 30, 2001, at 0:53:24
Jane - Sal's posts and actions have been increasingly erratic of late. He needs to see a doctor. His quasi-delusions and increase in religosity just might be predicting the onset of a psychotic episode.
Since he trusts the Salvation Army, perhaps they are the ones to get him to see a doctor. They need to know all he has been doing. I don't think that separating incidences is important. The important think is that Sal gets the helps he needs; the more info the docs receive, the better they can treat him. Who better to talk him into that than the one's he trusts (ie. Sally Ann)?
My 2˘ - Cam
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:55
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
> Notices to Jason's Southern California "Army" commanders, and to national and international leaders of the Salvation Army might also be helpful...
You're within your rights to contact publishers, but the goal of this community is support and education. Any further attempts to get others in trouble will lead to your being blocked again.
Bob
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 18:02:04
In reply to Re: Please be supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2001, at 4:59:55
I support people's efforts to learn about the law.
Attempting to exchange prescribed drugs on-line is a crime.
Distributing confidential passwords for subscription services is a crime.
It is a crime to attempt to intimidate a person who witnesses a crime in an effort to stop them from reporting the crime.
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 19:46:34
In reply to Re: Please reconsider, posted by Jane D on August 30, 2001, at 0:53:24
JD:It seems as though suddenly, having been angered by one issue, we are all throwing in everything else that has every angered us about Sal, this board and the internet in general.
PL: The "we" stance here seems innaccurate. This is not about anger. It is, for my part, a cool-headed discussion. JasonT's performance is considered here in the context of the administration of a medical self-help board and in the context of Internet technology.
>PL:
> Unfortunately, this situation highlights the lack of a hierarchy of credibility in the Internet environment.
> JD:
> This isn't exactly unique to the internet.PL: But this has been discussed as a unique problem with the Internet because so many people suddenly have access to publishing technology. Recognition of the eroding hierarchies of credibility in Internet publishing is not my original insight, but rather is a paraphrase of a widespread concern about the Internet held by scholars from many academies around the world. It is not a condemnation of the Internet, but rather a comparison with previous publishing technologies.
JD: But, if you decide that the risk of misinformation outweighs the good done here, you are condemning not only Sal but most of the rest of us as well. So I think this argument should be kept out of the current series of complaints about Sal.
PL: If you read carefully, I did not reach any conclusions about whether risks outweigh benefits, but rather described a risk unique to the Internet environment. That risk has been discussed by other posters with concerns about the quality of information on this site, and by the site administrator in published articles about this site.
> PL: Now that Jason's militant ("Army", "enemy") campaign of information warfare has escalated to direct promotion of his sect with the systematic reproduction of copyrighted information from scientific journals, perhaps some here would like to help notify the publishers of these journals about the situation.
>
> JD:
> This is a bit of an overstatement. Lack of consideration for other posters with different beliefs, yes. Information warfare - come on. I think this confuses two issues.PL: Information warfare can be described as attacks against information systems and as manipulation of information for propaganda purposes. If I tagged posts containing medical information with religious messages supporting Islamic Holy War would you consider that information warfare? Is the description of a Christian effort as that of an Army merely rhetoric, while the naming of an Islamic effort as a holy war makes that effort literally militant? The distribution of medical services (including information) as a vehicle for political/religious propaganda is a well established tactic of information warfare. If information warfare accurately describes the U.S. government's behavior in the mountains of Laos, and the Sandanista's tactics in Nicaraqua (hence making medical clinics fair targets for U.S. funded Contra attacks) it is also an apt description here.
JD: Advocacy of a specific religion and reproduction of copyrighted materials. You don't like either one.
PL: I did not say that. I don't like unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. I have no concerns about advocacy of a religion, as long as it is done in a fair, open and non-invasive manner. I don't like it when a person uses the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material in an effort to curry favor for their organization, when they or the organization does not have a right to the material and did not participate in production of the material.
JD: They are both done by one person. That does not mean that the articles are reproduced in order to promote the Salvation Army.
PL: I can't seem to locate the post by JasonT in which he explained why he does what he does. I recall it appeared a few weeks ago, when the level of religious content in his posts began to increase. He explained he did it to support his religion. My first-hand familiarity with Christian doctrine over a long period of time is also informative. Christian doctrine often teaches that believers should do good works so others will recognize the merits of their faith. That is fine by me, but when the works are just not good enough to reflect positively on the faith, some might feel it necessary to further emphasize their doctrine to those receiving charity. At that point, it is fair to point out that the quality of the material offered is substandard. These are not isolated arguments. If JasonT is not primarily motivated by an interest in education, the quality of his educational publication might be compromised by his effort to distribute quasi-educational material that will attract sympathy for his primary interest - the Salvation Army, or Christ, or whatever.
To point out ulterior motives when a source is open about their motives is a fair way to respond to the deteriorating hierarchy of information on the Internet, and is especially relevant to the administration of self-help publications on line.
JD: Complaining to the Salvation Army because Sal misuses articles, or complaining to publishers because you don't like his religious position, is unfair.
PL: Notifying an organization (SA) of the activities of people who engage in certain behavior in the name of the organization is perfectly fair. It is especially helpful to the organization itself, which is likely being misrepresented by actions that were not authorized by their chain of command. Notifying publishers when their copyrighted material is being used for unauthorized purposes is fair. It is not, as alleged by one psychiatrist, an effort to get JasonT in trouble, but rather is an effort to help JasonT work with his community to define standards of acceptable behavior.
JD: Nor is it fair to attempt to use religion to inflame people into supporting your views on copyright.
PL: I thought you discouraged attribution of motive, JaneD. I am not attempting to inflame anyone. I am offering information intended to accomplish a specific objective. The Salvation Army is not distributing this copyrighted material. JasonT is, and he is doing it in the name of the Salvation Army. It is fair to ask the Salvation Army to control members who attempt to undermine copyright standards in the name of the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army itself has proprietary interests in its own name and in the representation of itself as an organization. It is fair to advise them when those interests are being violated.
JD: This is not an appropriate place for coalition building.
PL: OH?
> PL: Notices to Jason's Southern California "Army" commanders, and to national and international leaders of the Salvation Army might also be helpful.
> JD:
> Helpful in what? If you are a Salvation Army believer that thinks your religion has been misrepresented it might be a good idea. Are you?PL: Helpful in the mission of the Salvation Army, helpful in the defense of copyright protections and helpful in supporting the integrity of this site and of on-line medical self-help groups in general. Am I a supporter of the SalArmy? Yes, I have rung their bell for long hours on cold wintry days, I have benefited from their charity and I have contributed to them by patronizing their retail stores. A Christian? No. A soldier? Maybe.
> PL:
> > In correspondence with Jason T.’s commanders, one might include links to posts where Jason has attempted to illegally exchange prescription medications
>
> JD:
> This is a mistake that others have made here as well. Everyone was get corrected. So far there have been no reoccurances so presumably this was an isolated incident. Why raise it here.PL: It reflects a pattern of behavior on his part that has in at least two instances clearly violated federal law (regarding medications and regarding distribution of passwords to subscription sites.) I am befuddled by why the management here continues to invite as a contributor a person who advocates law breaking, while treating with prolonged disdain another who reacted adversely to the unqualified suggestion that they are weak and unhealthy.
________________________________________________
As a footnote to Dr. Hsuing's statement that "this board is for support and education" I assert that the header on this page reads: "This is a message board for discussion of the administration of the Psycho-Babble message boards, Psycho-Babble, Psycho-Social-Babble, and Tele-Psycho-Babble. Possible topics might be problems with the site, ideas for improvements, dealing with particular posters."Even with a FAQ that now attempts to better define civility in Dr. Hsuing's terms, I wonder why he continues to introduce new rules and presume motives. The object of contacting publishers is not to get anyone in trouble, but rather to protect the integrity of copyright laws. The effort also was to support JasonT in his mission ("a loose cannon is a liability to its unit") and to educate him about the duties of a soldier ("Effective soldiering requires discipline") so he might better accomplish his chosen mission.
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 20:05:45
In reply to Re: Please help inform publishers, commanders » Pennie Lane, posted by shelliR on August 30, 2001, at 0:44:45
> >I haven't heard , however, any concensus that his journal quoting is unethical. This is an area that still needs to be explored. I feel that to call together "troups" to stop that practice at this moment is really misguided, Penny Lane, because appears to me that it does nothing but further hysterics.
Actually, since it is an area that needs to be explored, shouldn't the publishers that own the copyrights participate in the exploration? How can they participate if they do not know where their content is being redistributed? And since it requires time and effort to notify numerous publishers that their input is needed, isn't it fair of me to ask for help in contacting the publishers.
I really don't mean to inflame hysterics, and don't think it is very studious of anyone to attribute to me that motive. I was providing an rational and productive way for people to react other than with hysterics.
Posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 21:01:08
In reply to Reconsidered, posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 19:46:34
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 21:14:37
In reply to Reconsidered-WOW!-Cam shakes head - it rattles. (nm) » Pennie Lane, posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 21:01:08
(Shakes head, rattles) Is that good or bad?
Do you think I am obsessing or just engaged in a supportive and educational intellectual hobby, somewhat more interesting that television? I am pretty sure my work is not the product of any drug-drug interactions, except maybe coffee and Mountain Dew.
Chin up, here for U, you're not alone, etc.
Brains - Use 'em or loose 'em!
Posted by Cam W. on August 30, 2001, at 21:52:32
In reply to Re: Reconsidered-WOW!-Cam shakes head - it rattles. » Cam W., posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 21:14:37
Pennie - It's good!....well, maybe not for me. Hey, we only have the unleaded Mountain Dew up here; won't find me bumping heads with no bighorn (the things animals - including humans - do to get laid..."rattle, rattle"). ;^P
- Cam
Posted by Mair on August 30, 2001, at 21:59:28
In reply to Reconsidered, posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 19:46:34
>Pennie Lane - why do we have to be the champions of publishers whose copyrighted material may be desseminated on the Internet? I'm sure these people can take care of themselves without our assistance.
I don't like what Sal does because I don't think the kind of information he passes along is very helpful to the lay person, and can, rather, be overwelming, confusing and misleading. I had a pdoc who dumped about 8 different articles from the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry on me when we were considering augmentation strategies. After trying to wade through this stuff I had no better idea what i should do and was pretty pissed with him for asking me to read things that were clearly beyond my ability to fully digest. When I first came on PB I was blown away by the pharmacological knowledge and understanding of many of the posters. I figured out quickly, however, that the technical info wasn't useful to me because I was never going to really understand it, but that the anecdotal info was. I also figured out that all of the information supplied on this board is best used to help someone like me pose the right questions to a pdoc - not to make self medication decisions. That everyone responds very idiosyncratically to ADs and other meds is a message that I think needs to be reiterated continually so that people understand the limitations of what they learn. It bothers me alot that Sal doesn't generally qualify his responses and the information he passes along as I think he should.
None of this has anything to do with a violation of copyright laws IMHO.
Mair
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 23:07:11
In reply to PL - methinks ye doth protest too much, posted by Mair on August 30, 2001, at 21:59:28
> >Pennie Lane - why do we have to be the champions of publishers whose copyrighted material may be desseminated on the Internet?
You don't have do be champions, dear, it was just a suggestion. We are the champions of the world if we want to be, but we don't have to be. I was just asking, and somebody already quite bluntly said don't ask or else. But it seems perfectly civil to explain why I asked, since my motives were obviously misunderstood.
> I'm sure these people can take care of themselves without our assistance.
I am interested in my right and your right to publish material and our right to control the reproduction of our published material. The rule of law serves us all.
> I don't like what Sal does because I don't think the kind of information he passes along is very helpful to the lay person, and can, rather, be overwelming, confusing and misleading. I had a pdoc who dumped about 8 different articles from the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry on me when we were considering augmentation strategies.(snip)
> None of this has anything to do with a violation of copyright laws IMHO.
>
> MairI’ll try to explain, then. Copyright laws help to maintain hierarchies of credibility. They are not the only way to sort truth from fiction, but they serve the purpose of protecting the credibility of information.
It’s not that false information cannot be copyrighted; it can. But copyrights allow a person to attach their name to their work and nobody else can claim it. That doesn’t do much to assure the credibility of published information, either, but it does assure the credibility of the relationship between authors, their work and their readers. Thanks to copyright laws, people can’t change your writing or mine then claim you or I wrote it. So if you or I are credible sources, copyright laws serve to help our credibility adhere to our work. Now the real advantage of this adherence is that it makes possible a market for credible work. Credible authors can fetch incredible prices because the law protects the market for their work. Of course, extremely specialized credible information might be beyond reach, both financially and intellectually, of the average person. So this creates a secondary market for people who specialize in understanding and interpreting very credible and specialized information.
When a new market force or technology comes along, such as the Internet, which upsets a vague equilibrium in the market for highly credible and specialized information, we can see events such as you witnessed with your pdoc. Instead of studying the information and developing a secondary specialty in interpreting the information for lay people, some merchants try to find other ways to benefit from the information. A person might just throw a bunch of articles at you. It makes them look informed, and maybe even reinforces their standing as an authority, but it does not inform the client. And it might be illegal, if your pdoc billed you for time spent showing you photocopies of copyrighted articles.
What is happening now in 2001is that there is just too much information going around for markets to effectively categorize it all in a rational hierarchy of credibility. The market is trying, including with medical self-help sites where people share their interpretations and findings from specialized literature. But the equilibrium is in flux, and a lot of useless information is going around. I’m not protesting the quantity of information, I am making an accurate assessment, and suggesting norms that can help to restore some equilibrium.
So in the case of JasonT, I have no underlying objection to his doctrines, though I might personally disagree with them. I suspect a lot of his medical advice is ill informed, but this format allows for that. I am addressing technical areas of his presentation that tend to violate the social institutions the provide for a well-organized hierarchy of credibility among various sources of information. By doing so, I also encourage the study and interpretation of information rather than the use of raw information for its authoritative value.
By pointing out that Jason presents with neither the authority of the publications from which he cuts and pastes or of the Salvation Army, I ask by what authority he defends the credibility of his advice. The obvious answer is, his own. He can reinforce that authority by following accepted practices when presenting specialized information; he can study the information well enough to interpret, then he can briefly cite the sources of information from which he draws his own conclusions. This is a far different approach that saying “You could use some (drug name here)” in one post, and in another presenting lengthy out-of-context excerpts or an entire article with no commentary of his own.
When an author in one post says “illegally access these restricted subscriber web sites,” in another says “illegally send me prescription medications,” in another says “you could probably use some (drug name here)” and in another presents a lengthy unexplained excerpt from a medical journal along with a religious message, the posts can be considered either individually or together in discussing the credibility of the author. The discussion can properly address both the credibility of the individual author and the integrity of the publishing environment.
I hope this helps explain my interest a little more, and I hope you do not find it too fatiguing for you to plod through my detailed explanation.
Posted by Krazy Kat on August 31, 2001, at 10:11:22
In reply to Re: PL - methinks...That's good. Thinking is good. » Mair, posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 23:07:11
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2001, at 11:12:57
In reply to Reconsidered, posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 19:46:34
> PL: Notifying an organization (SA) of the activities of people who engage in certain behavior in the name of the organization is perfectly fair.
OK, I'm going to block you from posting again. Please don't just switch to another name. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Wendy B. on August 31, 2001, at 11:49:07
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » Pennie Lane, posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2001, at 11:12:57
> > PL: Notifying an organization (SA) of the activities of people who engage in certain behavior in the name of the organization is perfectly fair.
>
> OK, I'm going to block you from posting again. Please don't just switch to another name. Thanks,
>
> BobWell done, Dr. Bob!
PL was on a roll. SalArmy can sign his name any way he wants, with any tag he wants, within the rules established by the Board. Those rules have not changed. They are not used capriciously against one person over another. We have the option of NOT READING Sal's posts if they make us mad, or we think they're not useful, or disseminating wrong information, etc. etc. We might have a lot of reasons to ignore them.
When Cam had a previous "discusssion" with and over SalArmy, people told him to cool it, and that was ok. He did. Ignoring Sal actually works! (if you want it to.) You have control over your own emotions and responses, and it's not fair to Sal (sorry, guys) to dump shit on him that doesn't belong to him.
As for worrying about his meds, you guys monitor him more than I do. I haven't kept up with his meds schedule. Jeeze, are others monitoring MY meds? So that if I say something out of line, in someone's opinion, they're going to blast me knowing I take wellbutrin and neurontin? This is a valid question. "Oh, Wendy's going into a hypomanic episode again..." or "she's BP I, so don't pay any attention to her about..." Telling others that he is having the beginnings of a psychotic episode is really unfair. Do unto others....
The discussion of copyright was quite entertaining! Talk about projections and clouding the issue... The so-called publishers of these abstracts (that's all Sal ever quoted) have to do their own vetting of copyright infringers. The abstracts are available to anyone who knows how to do a search on the net, and copyright is NOT violated as long as the citations are given and are correct. Dr. Bob was absolutely right to block someone who would threaten to deliberately get someone in trouble with the law, the Salvation Army, or publishers.
The Board is not private, in other words, we talk about personal issues on an internet bulletin board, our pseudo-names protect us from discrimination, etc. But to take Sal's posts, and then try to use them against him, is really nasty. If he's having a hard time, why would you then add more problems to his life? Where is the compassion here, guys?
Don't get me wrong: I dislike with a passion what the Jesus-loving, savers-of-our-souls represent. I don't particularly like most of Sal's posts, but I do think he is supportive to others IN HIS WAY. Which is not MY WAY. Which doesn't mean he is wrong, or that I will then report him to the authorities because I disagree. This is just another form of witch-hunting.
Could we move on?
Respectfully,
Wendy
Posted by tina on August 31, 2001, at 12:54:02
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » Dr. Bob, posted by Wendy B. on August 31, 2001, at 11:49:07
> Could we move on?
***I doubt it......
Posted by stjames on September 6, 2001, at 0:57:41
In reply to Re: blocked from posting » Dr. Bob, posted by Wendy B. on August 31, 2001, at 11:49:07
As for worrying about his meds, you guys monitor him more than I do. I haven't kept up with his meds schedule. Jeeze, are others monitoring MY meds?
James here....
While you can ignore his posts, some of us have to check them, and issue countering views. It raised the bar, also, when this person playing doc and telling folks where to get their meds without seeing a real doc. Given the frequency of Sal's posts this makes quite a lot of work for some of us.
What happens when someone posts to the list, having followed Sal's advice, and ended up with TD, SS, NMS or is busted ? You can just not read it but I will be mad.
j
Posted by Cam W. on September 6, 2001, at 1:16:02
In reply to Re: blocked from posting, posted by stjames on September 6, 2001, at 0:57:41
James - This is getting really scary. - Cam
Posted by Phil on September 6, 2001, at 7:04:03
In reply to Re: posting » stjames, posted by Cam W. on September 6, 2001, at 1:16:02
> James - This is getting really scary. - Cam
> >I am concerned about people asking for other people's email and 'I'll tell you all about it...drug..suicide prevention, etc. ad nauseum.
I'm sorry, but Sal (asking for someone to send him drugs). C'mon man.Phil
Posted by Jane D on September 10, 2001, at 17:28:35
In reply to Re: blocked from posting, posted by stjames on September 6, 2001, at 0:57:41
> James here....
>
> While you can ignore his posts, some of us have to check them, and issue countering views. It raised the bar, also, when this person playing doc and telling folks where to get their meds without seeing a real doc. Given the frequency of Sal's posts this makes quite a lot of work for some of us.Perhaps the answer to this is to spread the work around a little. I have hesitated to post corrections out of a fear of being seen as always confrontational. I also tend to think that other people can respond better than I would. I agree this is unfair. I'll try to jump in more on those subjects I know something about.
Jane
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.