![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 34. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 6:35:46
Hi,
I would like to know the guidelines about the nature of posting material that could have possible legal/criminal consequences. I am extremely concerned about a particular thread and would appreciate any input.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:18:03
In reply to A Question...., posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 6:35:46
If you mean can what one posts here be used against one in a court of law, then yes. Dr. Bob explains that in the faq.
Posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 8:34:09
In reply to A Question...., posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 6:35:46
Thanks, but I was referring more to what if a poster is posting, not something about self-harm, but about *possibly* harming someone else that could result in a legal action. I understand you may post something about self-harm, or feeling suicidal, within guidelines, but generally that is not within civility rules.
I would like to know if this pertains to the possibility of doing something that has legal/criminal consequences. Thanks again.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:39:57
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 8:34:09
You mean does Dr. Bob contact the ISP if he considers someone to be a danger to others?
Posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 8:43:44
In reply to Re: A Question.... » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:39:57
Yes, that's it. Could I speak to someone privately about this, I wouldn't want to upset or offend anyone, but I feel very uncomfortable about a situation.
Posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:46:26
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 8:43:44
You can email Dr. Bob, whose address is next to his picture at the bottom of each page.
Posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 8:49:53
In reply to Re: A Question.... » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 9, 2006, at 8:46:26
Thanks, I will do that.
Posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 12:43:56
In reply to A Question...., posted by one woman cine on January 9, 2006, at 6:35:46
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know the guidelines about the nature of posting material that could have possible legal/criminal consequences. I am extremely concerned about a particular thread and would appreciate any input.
It's really important to try and distinguish what a poster means and also use the boards properly. I wouldn't take anything on Writing as any more than an expression of feeling, and for that matter, anything else here. Unless a poster says explicitly that "I'm going to do this-and-this", then whole thing is open to interpretation, personal interpretation being subjective always.. unless a crime has been committed and there is physical evidence. Physical evidence is the hallmark (or SHOULD be and unfortunately sometimes still isn't) for prosecution, and in that case we all have the ability to prosecute ourselves, don't we?
Posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:01:17
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 12:43:56
But unfortunately what we say has consequences, doesn't it, and it's up to those making accusations to prove that their interpretation is correct if they want to make a case out of something. So that's probably the way things work. You'd have to make a case, or someone else would, without physical evidence for a crime. With physical evidence, on the other hand, it's all pretty much a breeze. The law is usually open to interpretation. Gross interpretation, sometimes.
Posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:01:17
> But unfortunately what we say has consequences, doesn't it, and it's up to those making accusations to prove that their interpretation is correct if they want to make a case out of something. So that's probably the way things work. You'd have to make a case, or someone else would, without physical evidence for a crime. With physical evidence, on the other hand, it's all pretty much a breeze. The law is usually open to interpretation. Gross interpretation, sometimes.
Gross interpretation to match gross circumstances, maybe? Are we having fun, yet?
Sorry if I've jumped in here, inappropriately. I just couldn't help myself, I had to pick this up.
Posted by Sarah T. on January 19, 2006, at 2:13:56
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
Hi Susan,
Are you an attorney?
Sarah
Posted by Susan47 on January 19, 2006, at 8:50:35
In reply to Re: A Question.... » Susan47, posted by Sarah T. on January 19, 2006, at 2:13:56
> Hi Susan,
>
> Are you an attorney?
>
> Sarah
No, I'm observing.
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:53:19
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 13:03:05
"Gross interpretation to match gross circumstances, maybe? Are we having fun, yet?
Sorry if I've jumped in here, inappropriately. I just couldn't help myself, I had to pick this up."I'm not sure if you are meaning this sarcastially or not. I asked a question which was valid and that I was very concerned about. & the answer to your question "Are we having fun yet", is no I'm not. I don't understand the nature of your post, I guess. I have been staying away from PB because of some very real fears I have. & your post sounds as if you are making light of that. Are you?
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
In reply to Re: A Question...., posted by Susan47 on January 16, 2006, at 12:43:56
I have been staying away from PB because I HAVE been stalked several times, 2 of them ending up in criminal prosecution & there was no "physical evidence" per se. There were messages on my machine, etc. etc. & their hard drives were confiscated after warrants were executed. Since I can only explain what has happened to me, (& for obvious reasons, not in great detail) I would appreciate it if any legal observations be left as just that, interpretative; and not the authority.
Posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 16:51:58
In reply to Just FYI, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
Under the current circumstances, I'm asking you not to post to me - even if you don't specifically put my name in the subject line.
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:15:43
In reply to And...... Susan47 DNP, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 16:51:58
> Under the current circumstances, I'm asking you not to post to me - even if you don't specifically put my name in the subject line.
I apologize for upsetting onewomancine. I did not mean to have that effect upon her. I am trying to make light of my own terrible situation and in doing so, I have upset her. I am sorry, and I have babbled her telling her so. She did not say I couldn't babble her. I am not stalking her if that's what she is thinking.
Posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:26:25
In reply to Just FYI, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2006, at 14:59:46
> . Since I can only explain what has happened to me, (& for obvious reasons, not in great detail) I would appreciate it if any legal observations be left as just that, interpretative; and not the authority.
Exactly. Everything I say here is interpretative and I haven't claimed to be the authority on anything.
I'm sorry this is so serious an issue for one woman cine and if I upset her in any way with my interpretations then I apologize.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:21:07
In reply to Re: Just FYI, posted by Susan47 on January 20, 2006, at 3:26:25
Listen, I know you need to post on PB & I do not want you to get blocked, but if you post me again, I will ask that you be. Please respect my request.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:26:29
In reply to Susan47, please respect my wishes and DNP to me!!!, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:21:07
Actually, nevermind - I can't reply to you & I did ask that you not post to me because I do not want you to post to me or vice versa. But by posting to me, not once but twice after I ask that you not to do that, you have forced this issue. I'm sorry, but I did ask you not to post.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:04:04
In reply to Re: Susan47, please respect my wishes and DNP to me!!!, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 7:26:29
I *think* that Dr. Bob has just said that it was ok for someone to post an apology that refers to the poster in third person. He can check it out when he comes to the board, because it's apparently a very complex rule to enforce.
I also think that speaking to the person you asked not to post to gives them the right to reply.
I'm assuming from what you wrote that you don't wish your posts to rescind the Do Not Post, or that you want them reinstated, or whatever the technicalities of the rule may be?
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:18
In reply to Do not posts » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:04:04
Yes, I do not want to rescind my do not post, for reasons I have already explained. & in my opinion, it was not just an apology, as seen by her post which included this...
"I am trying to make light of my own terrible situation and in doing so, I have upset her." ... "I am not stalking her if that's what she is thinking."
I didn't ask anyone what they thought, I simply stated my request. & also, in her Babblemail to me, I felt it was also not a simple apology - she basically was justifying her position.
It is not my intention to cause anyone harm here. I have withdrawn from posting to Susan47 because she stated it caused her to be upset. I am only requesting that she extend the same courtesy to me. I apologize if it seems like I am splitting hairs - but I feel like my feelings don't count in this matter & they do.
& also feel as if the letter of law can be followed in regards to civility rules, but not the spirit of it. ie, apologies that can also include incivilities that cause someone to feel put down, sarcastic remarks, etc. etc.
If I state DNP, it is not an endeavor I take lightly & something I have put alot of thought into.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:16
In reply to Re: Do not posts, posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 9:49:18
Oops. I forgot the babblemail, and I'm not sure Dr. Bob has ruled on that yet.
I personally think that Babblemail should count on posts, but since Dr. Bob hasn't answered, shall we wait for him to come to the board?
On the other hand, you might want to check the FAQ, because it clearly states that the DNP doesn't stop the poster from posting on a thread you started, or posting about what you said.
Posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 10:39:45
In reply to Re: Do not posts » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 9:53:16
This the portion of the FAQ..
"Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
As previous post entitled "Re:FYI" by Susan47, is posting directly to me & not just a third person apology, the previous post "To everyone" includes interpretations and assumptions made as to what I may be thinking.
Believe me, I have spent some time on this issue & I can appreciate all the work that goes into this.
Posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 11:37:34
In reply to Portion of the FAQ..., posted by one woman cine on January 20, 2006, at 10:39:45
Dr. Bob will rule on it, unless one of the other deputies understands the rules better than I do and wants to do something.
As you might have seen from the recent conversations on this board, I'm still trying to feel comfortable with my understanding of this.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2006, at 11:48:47
In reply to Re: Portion of the FAQ... » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on January 20, 2006, at 11:37:34
And I don't think we ever got a "ruling" on whether someone is allowed to babblemail someone else who has requested a DNP.
I tend to think not. I think I DNP should also include Do not Babblemail, and I'd like to see that clarified.
gg
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.