![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 134. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:31:30
One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:31:30
It all applies to defamation. There couldn't be any defamation here, because nobody uses real names.
And even if there could be, there wasn't any towards so. Cross words and disagreements do not make for defamation.
The closest to defamation would be so's accusations about Dr. Bob.
defame: "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander"
libel: "a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt"
<note the word unjust>
slander: "see defame:"
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:56:30
In reply to Re: I read your link » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
Friends,
It is written here,[...couldn't be defamation here,{because real names are not used here...].
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you investigate as to if a person does not use their real name that that protects them from the laws of defamation.
I have a large body of infomation concerning that and will post such if necessarry. As of now, my research shows not.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:04:36
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-SueDoe?, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 11:56:30
Lou, have you visited many other sites?
The worst of what goes on at Babble is standard at many sites, including large and very public ones. And I'm not even talking ones about mental health, although I've seen some interesting standards of conduct on those as well.
I went to one of the big news sites with a board, and was shocked down to my toes.
I think that even if the Internet police came knocking, they'd find plenty to do before they reached Babble.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:06:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-SueDoe? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 12:04:36
I've got work to do.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 12:09:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
> One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
>
> People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
>
> I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.Friends,
It is written here, [...one of the wonderful aspects of democracy...DR Bob has no requierment of accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion...].
I am requesting that if you are going to reply to this thread that you research the archives as to if "dancingstar" was {voicing her opinion} when she was expelled for writing,[...Personally, I do not belive that it is a problem with a ...]? Dr. Hsiung's rules that he has in his FAQ writes,[...different points of view are encouraged...] And there were previous posts here that were of the same nature of dancingstar's where the poster was not expelled and the post was not addressed by Dr. Hsiung. His reply to me as to my request for clarification of such was in some way that if the post in question was posted today, it would not pass muster. But I ask,what was posted between that post and dancingstar's post to indicate to dancingstar, or anyone else, that there was a change?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 12:31:09
In reply to Re: I read your link » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 11:39:32
It was a apt one. And I know I need a reminder lately. Color me reminded. :)
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on July 22, 2005, at 12:39:33
In reply to Hey Mel...remember that observation you made? » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 12:31:09
Posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 13:04:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 11:21:53
> > Lou, I believe that Dinah acted in good faith and with excellent judgement in placing the block on "so". Dr Bob has indicated the length of the block as 1 year.
>
> I missed this post. Can someone link me to it, please? I was curious, too about how long the block was.
>Maybe it was a dream I had? Darned if I can find such a post by Dr Bob about the block's length. I am sorry, everyone, for any confusion I caused. Time for me to go back to bed.
And Lou - I'll stay out of further discussion regarding "so". It is obviously way out of my league. I'm not even American, let alone knowledgeable about international laws regarding the internet and how the US Constitution is involved.
Best wishes,
partlycloudy
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:28:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-recnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 11:34:29
> One wonderful aspect of democracy, and one very much upheld here at Babble, is that you don't have to do research before speaking.
>
> People can reply to this thread even if they don't have the foggiest notion of what law governs the internet, or even if they have an incorrect notion of what law governs the internet.
>
> I'm not saying that any particular poster has either condition. I'm just pointing out that Dr. Bob has no requirement for accuracy of facts. And that people are allowed to voice their opinion anyway.Thank you for posting this, Dinah. I appreciate having it spelled out -- especially on this matter, since I'm way late for my day today and don't have time to read anything beyond a few threads here. While I'm interested in the information contained in that link, I just can't do it.
And yet, I have something to say about this whole Teacup Tempest...
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion, eh? *g*)
www.dr-bob.org is not a democracy, it is not a government of any sort, it is not a public service in the usual sense of that phrase -- it is a web site created and maintained by one man, and as such is governed by that one man's rules. Maybe a pretty accurate way to look at is isn't as a sort of virtual coffee-shop, but as Dr Robert Hsuing's Virtual Living Room, where we can come and hang out, as long as we respect his rules as we would if we were in his physical living room?
Dunno... Just the way I see it, when I find myself smarting from a PBC, or irritated by a block that seems out of proportion to the infraction. {shrug} Personally, I agree with Scott, though -- the rules do help me, and I appreciate them for that reason. Even if I don't always agree 100%...
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2005, at 13:37:14
In reply to OK, if I wasn't crazy I wouldn't be here, right?, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 13:04:42
Hey, no worries. I think you fit right in here, of course in your own unique way. As we all do.
((((pc))))
gg
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
> There are many reasons for my request to you.
> The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
> The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
> Lou PIlderFirst of all, Lou, I really am curious about where you find the relevance to the 14th amendment? (While I'm not a constitutional scholar, I do have a passing familiarity with a lot of it, and sometimes even read the Supreme Court's rulings...)
Beyond that, though, Lou, I think the reason "so" was blocked had less to do with her reaction to the "SOme peoPLe" post, and a whole lot more to do with her reaction to being reminded that someone had previously posted a "Do Not Post" request which was being violated. If you read the following post, you'll see that "so," in effect, threatened to post "what I really think" and then proceeded to post a series of attacks, mostly targetting Dr Bob himself, but also insulting other posters here. I think that is a violation of any rules of civility, and therefore the block was probably justified. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529536.html
Also, Lou -- I was one of the posters singled out by "so" and I will tell you that I did have a very strong emotional reaction to those posts directed at me. My feelings were hurt, and I felt as though I was neither welcome nor safe here at Babble. Do you think that it is appropriate for someone to write something about another poster here that is so directly accusatory? I'm guessing -- and hoping -- that you just didn't see some of those posts.
Anyway, I gotta disagree with you on this one. I don't think that "so" was blocked because the moderators didn't respond rapidly enough. I think that "so" earned her block, and I hope that Dr Bob will support Dinah's actions.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 14:26:23
In reply to Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
I thought it was about the thread regarding RHisaPredator. But I was gone for the day, and am not sure of the timeline at all. I think you'd probably know better than I would.
I guess it's a lot easier to tell when you're here. Another reason it takes Dr. Bob a while to sort through things. He probably needs to check posting times as well as actual words.
Posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 19:18:05
In reply to Re: Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Racer, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2005, at 14:26:23
> I thought it was about the thread regarding RHisaPredator. But I was gone for the day, and am not sure of the timeline at all. I think you'd probably know better than I would.
>
> I guess it's a lot easier to tell when you're here. Another reason it takes Dr. Bob a while to sort through things. He probably needs to check posting times as well as actual words.
I was pretty well confused by that one -- soared right over my pointy little head *g*Thanks for 'splainin' it to me...
Posted by Jen Star on July 22, 2005, at 19:22:12
In reply to Where does the 14th amendment come in? » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on July 22, 2005, at 13:45:03
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:55
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
I'm sure he appreciates the support, but if he wants the length of his block reduced, he needs to email me.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
> it was abundantly clear that "so"'s stated purpose was to incite outrage here.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » partlycloudy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2005, at 13:13:59
Excuse me, I derived my opinion from this post:
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
I was in too much of a hurry to quote it in my original post.
partlycloudy
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 23:26:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
I don't post this to present an excuse for being uncivil - I wish I had taken the time to quote the original post, obviously. I think I was pretty muddied up about the whole sequence by this part except from feeling offended. Sorry I did not make it abundantly clear in the beginning.
pc> Excuse me, I derived my opinion from this post:
>
> URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
>
> I was in too much of a hurry to quote it in my original post.
> partlycloudy
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2005, at 17:59:34
> URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529603.html
"And I will be back. You won't know me when you see me."
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 13:34:19
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
Yep, I think it was pretty clear at the end.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
In reply to Re:, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 6:58:20
> > And I will be back. You won't know me when you see me.
Still, he doesn't actually state that his purpose is to incite outrage here, does he?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2005, at 18:37:53
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
Just thought it might be good to bring it to your attention, and I'll bookmark it in case I need to bring it to your attention again.
I also thought it might be a good time for you to reiterate the rules for coming back, particularly as someone who wouldn't be known when seen.
I'm sure I don't have to remind you of your agreement regarding shortening block lengths?
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 21:17:23
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 18:27:37
He/she did say that what was going on was civil disobediance. Is that something that is intended to incite outrage? Seems like it could be, if civil disobediance is designed to foster awareness leading to perhaps change?
Just a thought.
gg
Posted by JenStar on July 24, 2005, at 21:56:20
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 21:17:23
I think that people are sometimes so disruptive, and enter posts that are so deliberately unkind to others, that it would be acceptable to give them a lifetime ban.
"so" entered multiple unkind posts, and even said that he/she was going to "go crazy" with mean posts (I've paraphrased, but am keeping the spirit, I believe) before he/she got banned. "so" basically said that he/she know the posts were uncivil but wanted to do them to upset people. I distinctly remember this post. In a case like this, don't you think that a mere 6 (or 18) weeks is too weak of a ban?
"so" him/herself said in several posts that he/she knows how to use words effectively to incite people (or something similar), and several times bragged about his/her cleverness in using words against people. There were also veiled threats against others.
Words are all we have to go by, here on Babble. I understand wanting to play fair, but I don't think "so" plays fair. Do you not think that a longer ban would be appropriate, given some of things that I've pointed out above?
I guess I'm feeling frustrated, Dr. Bob, by what seems to be a detached and bemused attitude towards posters who really hurt other people's feelings on purpose. I would like to see more positive support for the regulars here.
You directly responded to a post of so's, stating that he/she could continue to argue/debate with you in the future. To me, that seemed to indicate that you felt that so's posts were logical and worthy of future attention, even though they were quite uncivil. But I didn't see any posts from you that supported some of the posters who were on the receiving end of so's posts. I know that it's probably interesting to have people like so come in from time to time, because the reactions of other people are interesting, in an objective way. But so many people really LIKE babble. I think it would be nice to have a little more of a "dr. bob firewall" protecting the gentler souls here!
thanks for your consideration.
JenStar
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.