![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:58:12
In reply to Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 9:42:18
> I also do not think or believe that it is a sound mental health practice to prescribe to any system of logic that says that since one post by that poster is unacceptable, then all the rest of the posts by that poster can be left unaddressed. If they are left unaddressed then I believe that others could have the potential to think that a post is acceptable when it is not.
Lou, I'm going to take one of your points and make it more general for the sake of my point. Certainly in recent cases, all or nearly all of certain posters' posts were viewed as unacceptable by many in the community. But what about a questionable post by someone who generally is civil? Does this mean that all of their posts must now be scrutinized by Dr. Bob?
While I do think it's unfortunate that all of certain poster's recent posts were deemed "a first offense", I'm not sure why it is necessary for Dr. Bob to provide a seal of approval or disapproval for posts. I think a fair number of the community provided validation that the posts in question were not acceptable to the community. I did that myself in my responses to Herman Munster and to Shalom34Israel. I voiced my feelings about their posts.
>I am still hurting from posts here that you have not addressed as to the acceptability or not even after I have posted and emailed you to do so and since you have not addressed them, one here could have the potential to think that the posts about me are acceptable by you which have tthe potential to defame me and humiliate me.
If I may offer an interpretation here, I think the above may be the crux of the matter for you. I can tell you are upset and perhaps frustrated that Dr. Bob has not responded to all of your inquiries. I can also tell that your inquiries are very important to you. Can you accept validation from others instead of Dr. Bob? Does that help at all? In some ways, at least to me, validation from my peers is more valuable than that from an authority figure.
At any rate, I feel for you in your frustration. Are there still inquiries you have made that have not been addressed by Dr. Bob? Perhaps you could consolidate them and send them via email to him? I would suggest you could also consolidate them and put them in a post, but I don't know how that might be affected by the new rule.
Take care,
gg
Posted by alesta on December 5, 2004, at 1:13:31
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
i'm sure he's just more familiar with them. i'd think you'd make a stellar jury member, i mean dodgeball player, personally. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 5, 2004, at 1:23:58
In reply to AGAIN I'm the last one picked for dodgeball !!! (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on December 4, 2004, at 14:35:14
People can be picked for dodgeball one week...
And not allowed to post replies the next...
I have concluded that it really is not personal at all.I'd pick you for my dodgeball team
But I'm opposed to exercise as a matter of principle...
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
In reply to Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 4, 2004, at 14:00:10
Hi Lou I have been around maybe a year and a half I am not sure maybe 2...maybe less lol and am off and on the site. I thus may be missing your function on the site. I am more and more confused reading this thread because it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob? I see nothing stating this so I am lost ..I am not being funny, uncivil or sarcastic or anything if you are not but man I am confused because of your posts and offers to him. If it is just his site why would he or anyone want to set up a panel of people pre-picked by someone else ? I know if I owned a site I would not want that and it would be like my home people can come or go if they do not like my rules. I do not always agree with Dr Bob...I have come close to trouble a few times myself.
Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group? I agree as to some of the posters in question but still we have a lot of freedom in here that I have not seen on other sites I have been on. Sorry if I am not saying this well I do agree on some posters but I see this could also backfire.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:24:17
In reply to Re: Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
F4MT,
You wrote,[...If I owned a site...it would be like my home... people can come and go if they do not like my rules...].
Well, in your home would you say that you could allow a guest to be defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by another guest and say to the guest that was defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by the other guest that they could leave because it will be allowed for the other guest to defame you in front of all the other guests? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:56:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B, posted by gardenergirl on December 4, 2004, at 23:58:12
gg,
You wrote,[...can you accept validation from others instead of Dr. Hsiung?...].
Let us look at this forum as like a newspaper. And let us say that the editor allowed articles to be written by others that defamed or ridiculed or had the potential to arrouse ill-will toward someone. There could be then others writing in aginst the article about the person that was subjected to the article. But would that in your opinion, suffice to take away any thought that the newspaper endorsed what the article wrote about the person that was the subject of the articl or would it be necessarry for the newspaper to respond that they do not endorse what was written about the person? If you could reply to that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 17:45:37
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~endrs, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2004, at 7:02:49
Life is messy. People are human. Life is not fair much of the time. This is how the world operates.
There is no way to be acceptable to everyone. People get offended. People move on. Such is life.
It is my opinion that Babble should operate as the real world. You take the good and ignore the bad. American society is becoming so STERILE due to political correctness and fear of being sued.
Life is messy and so is Babble. Anything else in my opinion is completely unrealistic.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:56:31
>But would that in your opinion, suffice to take away any thought that the newspaper endorsed what the article wrote about the person that was the subject of the articl or would it be necessarry for the newspaper to respond that they do not endorse what was written about the person?
I think that if the newspaper had a written notice somewhere that said they do not endorse any materials submitted to them, something like "the views of those writing in to this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board", then no, I do not think that the editors would have to address a specific article written that might be inflammatory.
Dr. Bob has a similar notice, stating that he is only responsible for his own posts. That is not as specific as what I wrote above, but one can infer he means the same.
gg
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2004, at 8:24:17
Lou, if I understand your question correctly I personally would allow my guests to be adults and deal with the issue themselves. Now if a fist fight or something broke out I would ask they both leave for the THAT visit. If I personally KNEW one friend struck the other first and for ZERO reason I would ask my slap happy friend to go. I would not ask the rest of my guests to decide who would stay and who would go and so on. It's like my smoking rule here you are not allowed to smoke.. not only in my house but also ON my property I have a lot of land and if my friends want to be on my property they will not smoke. If they want to smoke then they could go somewhere else and smoke with their other friends. They do NOT HAVE to smoke on my property nor fight with me on my rule and they respect that. So I guess my point is as it is MY home and they are guests it would be MY call right or wrong.
I am still wondering what your role is as far as if you work or co own the site I am seriously not understanding that.> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...If I owned a site...it would be like my home... people can come and go if they do not like my rules...].
> Well, in your home would you say that you could allow a guest to be defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by another guest and say to the guest that was defamed or ridiculed or humiliated by the other guest that they could leave because it will be allowed for the other guest to defame you in front of all the other guests? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to reply accordingly.
> Lou
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:25:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
I totally agree with you GG...I use to co-own a small site and we had rules as well as disclaimers.
>
> I think that if the newspaper had a written notice somewhere that said they do not endorse any materials submitted to them, something like "the views of those writing in to this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board", then no, I do not think that the editors would have to address a specific article written that might be inflammatory.
>
> Dr. Bob has a similar notice, stating that he is only responsible for his own posts. That is not as specific as what I wrote above, but one can infer he means the same.
>
> gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
In reply to Re: Lou's offer to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 1:53:11
> it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob?
No, he's just making suggestions, which everyone is welcome to do.
> Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group?
The idea of being more democratic has come up before, for example, at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89921.html
And recently, I myself asked about a more democratic structure:
> > Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where ... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
>
> http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
>
> ... Would a more democratic structure help?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/406827.html
But there wasn't much response...
1. At that other forum, how were the moderators, etc., selected?
2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
Bob
Posted by All Done on December 6, 2004, at 2:09:32
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> BobDr. Bob,
Would it be made known on board that the post was reported to you? If not, and you were to review a reported post and deem it uncivil, would the process of PBC'ing or blocking then move on board?
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2004, at 2:37:27
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
>
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> BobI do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
To tell the truth I've always preferred the benign (mainly benign) monarchy of this site to a democracy because I think you protect the minority from the majority, and I *always* think that's a good thing. Not that the majority here is bad or anything, but it's just human nature. While you, as someone not involved, have a bit more distance and aren't as likely to let emotions rule your decisions. (I'm sure you get emotionally involved at times, but I notice you administrate the charged threads last on occasion.) But I don't see much potential for problems with this idea. And I'm great at seeing potential problems. :)
You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:39:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
F4MT,
You wrote,[...I... would allow my guests...deal with the issues themselves...].
In my post to you , I had asked if you would allow a guest to humiliate another guest. Are you saying , then, that you would not intercede and allow a possible confrontation to go on that could lead to assult and then you would try to evict the"slap happy" guest?
Let us go further into this situation in your home. If the guest then made a sign that ridiculed another guest, perhaps having the poster libled with defaming epithets, and staked it in the front lawn where 100s of cars went bye per hour, would you allow the sign to remain in the front lawn for all the people that could pass bye to see?
If you could reply to the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:55:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
F4MT,
You wrote,[...rule...not allowed to smoke on my property...my call right or wrong...].
In your no smoking rule for your property, would you enforce that rule by making the smoker leave when you see him/her smoking or would you follow the policy that you wrote about where one guest humiliated another guest and your position is to let them settle it among themselves without your interceding untill it could escalate into a possible assult? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
gg,
You wrote,[...no, I do not think that the editor would have to address ...aricle...inflamatory...].
Well, now we are getting into what the law says about that. I am not a lawyer and do not want anyone here to take the following as legal advise but only to write some of what I think what I know about defamation on the internet. The law provides a remedy if newspapers defame others. This is a good law , for if newspapers were allowed to defame others, they could inflict great economic damage to businesses with lible. In respect to economic damage to a business, a newspaper could also be held liable for allowing others to defame that business or if the newspaper fostered the libel. This happened here in Cincinnati with the newspaper reporter writing libelious material about Chicita Bananna. The newspaper was requiered by the court to write an apology for the libel and had to pay a substantial amount for the damages to the company.
Harm can result to an idividual when a statement published about the person is false. But there is also emotional harm to a person besides economic harm.
In this analogy, I have used a newspaper because a newspaper claimes to monitor and remove objecionable material (Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995.}
In the internet, AOL is not liable for what others write because they do not make the claim that they {monitor} the boards that they sponsor.
In this forum, the moderator writes that a deputy can remove grossly offensive material and the moderator is sanctioning posts that [...have the potential to put down or accuse others or jump to a conclusion about others...or use offensive langusge...]. One test that the courts have used to determine if the internet forum is liable for allowing defamation is if the forum {...is open to residents of all states...].(Resolution Trust Corp. v. First of America Bank 1992, however this ruling may be overruled if it is ever taken tto the U S supreme cout on constitutional issues.
Another aspect of an internet forum is if it is open to the public. If so, would the 1st and 14th amemdment to the US Constituion apply? My research shows that it very well could if the forum was a part of , lets say, a school that receives federal funds. But what if the forum was not? Could the forum still cause harm by libel be it economic or emotional harm? IMO,I say not.
Lou
Posted by nikkit2 on December 6, 2004, at 7:09:41
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
Can I just point out that the internet is Global, and not just based in the US. Therefore, the laws governing it are not the same as for paper based material.
I think the easiest thing for Dr Bob would be to host the site on a server in the Phillipines (as an example), as he would not then be liable to US law in any way.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 7:22:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by nikkit2 on December 6, 2004, at 7:09:41
Nikkit2,
You wrote,[...the internet is global...laws not the same for paper -based...Dr. Bob could have the server in the Phillipines...not liable to U.S. law...].
You have a good background it seems on this subject. In my reserch, I have come across what you wrote reletive to the global issue of the internet and the issue of jurisdiction. What else have you found that {could be relevant to the administrative aspect of this forum}?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
I'm clearly not a lawyer either, and unfortunately, your post has gone beyond my capacity for discussion about this. I guess, naive as it might be, I tend to look at what feels like common sense first. I am less concerned about the legal aspect of it.I am hoping that your bringing the legal end into this discussion was to make a point, and not because you are thinking of legal recourse to your concerns here?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 10:47:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
gg,
You wrote,[...I tend to look at what feels like common sense first...I am less concerned about... ...legal aspects..].
But can common sense be wrong? In the United States at one time it was thought it was common sense that slavery was legal. In that famous U. S. Supreme Court case, it was ruled that slaves were property and not free, even if they left a slave state and went to a free state for theowner of the slave could persue the slave and bring the slave back on the grounds that the skave is the property of the slave-owner. This court decision preceeded the U.S. Civil War.
Is there not different common senses? Whose common sense could be the one that is right?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 11:06:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
gg,
You wrote,[...I was hoping that your bringing in the legal end was to make a point, not because you are thinking of legal recorse of your concerns here...].
That is correct. It is not my intention to bring legal recorse for my concerns here. I believe that things are to be settled at the lowest possible level.
That is why I believe in the administrtive board's function so in settleing at the lowest possible level we can be in dialog on these issues.
But I do not think that it could harm anyone to take a look at legal decisions as a guidline for policy here. The laws for defamation are changing rapidly for the internet and I believe that what I have to contribute could be of some value to look at these issues for the laws now could be different from the laws that were in effect yesterday. As of now there is a case of great impotance that I think is relavant to this forum. The case is one where a person requested an internet forum to remove a post that the plaintiff consideered to be defaming to him. The defendant refused. The case is: Godfrey v. Demon. I believe that there is the potential for this case to be relavant to this forum.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 6, 2004, at 13:09:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Nikkit2-glb » nikkit2, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 7:22:58
I don't have an incredibly indepth understanding, but my understanding from having worked on internet security issues in the past (national security rather than computer security) is that is *partly* where a site is based as to the laws that govern it.
But, its not entirely the laws of the land that cover it but where the perpetrator is based - so, again in my understanding, you can't use laws under the US Constitution as an example. You see, *I* am not covered by the US Constitution as I am not resident in the US. So, as another example, I could "defame" you all I like, as I am not legally bound by the same laws as you.
So, while things like child pornograpjy *are* illegal to post on the internet in the vast maority of countries, minor offences such as defamation, isn't.
I hope I am making this clearer
Nikki
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
Hey Dr Bob a report button would be a great idea IMO it would save time and send the info to you right off..you could then go in and take whatever action you wanted. This is IMO the best idea I have seen and fair as no select clique would be chosen I have seen far too many sites become *just for the few* because of how close the monitors were
I use to be on The Depression Forum we never knew how certain people were selected they were NOT selected by us..the owner of the site was not really involved much as far as we knew plus it was never really clear WHO owned it. I can only guess he/she picked a long trusted poster to pick the others and well it spun into more of a dictatorship.
For those of us on your site they can say we cheated on our spouse for example or that we are in love with our T but on the site I use to be on the RELATIONSHIP monitor would delete YOU or your posts or even the thread due to HER issues. For a while it was OK to post on those subjects and others then we got this new relationship monitor *a fellow poster with unresolved issues* I rather liked her as a person but she was herself in a terrible relationship and could *not be objective* as her husband was cheating on her and other issues I would feel bad posting on here so she would PM people and get rid of them.
On my board that I co-owned with a friend. We both owned and had few rules we said swear all you want but do not talk politics....we and only we ran the show and if anyone had an issue they could send us a PM knowing we may not get to it that day..we only removed one girl because she fell in love with him and was stalking him and threatening suicide another no no on our site we had a we will not deal with it policy call 911 etc disclaimer..I took her off per his request and sent her a letter as to the reason why...I still have a site it's on groups at AOL a private site of friends no rules small group and I delete anything out of line which is so rare and again my only rule is no politics. Anyone can set up a site like on AOL with chat and posting boards or PHP ...BETA is free and make it how they want. This is why I do not see why some view this as the only board they can be on and want to change it so much as to fight over it with you. They can take their friends to a site they all made...Again my thoughts only. Thank you for explaining about Lou I was thinking maybe it was a co-owned site. I know we can make suggestions and requests I appreciate that. Again thanks for the site.I say go for the report buttons :-) it will be less work for you and we could ALL be involved in the process not just a few but if you want a few...you know what I say :-) ...IT is YOUR site
> > it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob?
>
> No, he's just making suggestions, which everyone is welcome to do.
>
> > Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group?
>
> The idea of being more democratic has come up before, for example, at:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89921.html
>
> And recently, I myself asked about a more democratic structure:
>
> > > Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where ... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
> >
> > http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
> >
> > ... Would a more democratic structure help?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/406827.html
>
> But there wasn't much response...
>
> 1. At that other forum, how were the moderators, etc., selected?
>
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:25:36
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT- » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:39:33
Lou you still haven't addressed much of what I have said or asked and I imagine we could go around and around but it boils down to...it would be my house my property and thus MY call not my guests. So I WOULD decide what I would do or not do with that sign :)
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...I... would allow my guests...deal with the issues themselves...].
> In my post to you , I had asked if you would allow a guest to humiliate another guest. Are you saying , then, that you would not intercede and allow a possible confrontation to go on that could lead to assult and then you would try to evict the"slap happy" guest?
> Let us go further into this situation in your home. If the guest then made a sign that ridiculed another guest, perhaps having the poster libled with defaming epithets, and staked it in the front lawn where 100s of cars went bye per hour, would you allow the sign to remain in the front lawn for all the people that could pass bye to see?
> If you could reply to the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:27:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-puf/def » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:55:29
Lou I said NO SMOKING on my property at all...none... so whomever smoked would GO ...however I have decent guests who respect me thus nobody smokes when they come HERE.
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.