![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Bryte on August 23, 2014, at 1:41:56
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Bryte discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2014, at 0:19:54
> Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
>
> BobYes, I can.
Can you say more about whether you maintain professional liability insurance to indemnify yourself against claims that could arise related to your activities here? If so, please answer the question.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 26, 2014, at 13:20:56
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Bryte on August 23, 2014, at 1:41:56
> > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
>
> Yes, I can.Great, please do.
Bob
Posted by pontormo on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:39
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Bryte on August 22, 2014, at 0:00:15
Just to keep things clear:
Bob is not legally liable for content provided by users of psychobabble.
What his moral or other responsibility may be is perhaps a matter of debate, but section 230 of the DCA protects him from liability for the effects of posts here.
That is, Section 230 of the DCA provides protection from liability to owners of internet forums and ISPs for content distributed through their site.. It essentially was passed to free forum owners from sanctions that a "publisher" of material might be subject to. The question was whether owners, if they restricted posts, thereby became "editors" who by exercising control over what material was published and in what form, became thereby responsible for it.
There had been lawsuits that claimed this liability. They argued that by blocking or deleting material, internet forum owners became "publishers", thereby liable for the content. The act specifically rejects and makes impossible that claim.
In this respect, Bob doesn't need insurance-- although perhaps someone might file an unwinnable lawsuit simply to force him to expend funds that he doesn't have, on hiring lawyers to defend himself. This has been done, generally by companies who believe that their businesses have been negatively affected by discussions or reviews on websites. And it can have a devastating effect. But one would be hard-pressed to think that an attorney to take this case-- given that any damages would be exceptionally hard to prove.
That posters here feel uncomfortable--or even very uncomfortable-- no matter how widespread the discomfort--could never be the basis of any such action. It doesn't create the sort or degree of damage that is actionable. that is.
Again, one might say it's wrong of Bob to have subject people to discomfort-- but it simply isn't the sort of damage that courts or the legal system deem itself in the role of addressing.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:40
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 22, 2014, at 12:22:21
> Just to keep things clear:
>
> Bob is not legally liable for content provided by users of psychobabble.
>
> What his moral or other responsibility may be is perhaps a matter of debate, but section 230 of the DCA protects him from liability for the effects of posts here.
>
> That is, Section 230 of the DCA provides protection from liability to owners of internet forums and ISPs for content distributed through their site.. It essentially was passed to free forum owners from sanctions that a "publisher" of material might be subject to. The question was whether owners, if they restricted posts, thereby became "editors" who by exercising control over what material was published and in what form, became thereby responsible for it.
>
> There had been lawsuits that claimed this liability. They argued that by blocking or deleting material, internet forum owners became "publishers", thereby liable for the content. The act specifically rejects and makes impossible that claim.
>
> In this respect, Bob doesn't need insurance-- although perhaps someone might file an unwinnable lawsuit simply to force him to expend funds that he doesn't have, on hiring lawyers to defend himself. This has been done, generally by companies who believe that their businesses have been negatively affected by discussions or reviews on websites. And it can have a devastating effect. But one would be hard-pressed to think that an attorney to take this case-- given that any damages would be exceptionally hard to prove.
>
> That posters here feel uncomfortable--or even very uncomfortable-- no matter how widespread the discomfort--could never be the basis of any such action. It doesn't create the sort or degree of damage that is actionable. that is.
>
> Again, one might say it's wrong of Bob to have subject people to discomfort-- but it simply isn't the sort of damage that courts or the legal system deem itself in the role of addressing.
>
Friends,
> portormo wrote,[...Bob is not legally liable for content provided by users of psychobabble...].
Friends, be advised that the poster refers to a law in the US that says that when the whole law is not cited.
Another part of that law states that owners of sites similar but not exactly like psychobabble are immune from liability posted by others UNLESS, and I caution you here to understand that the immunity offered by the CDA is not absolute.
The law reads in part that site owners are immune from liability that could arise from third-party posts unless they are creators or developers of the content. Then they lose their immunity.
Lou
Posted by pontormo on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:41
In reply to Lou's warning-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cre/dvl » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2014, at 13:47:55
My post addressed Bob's liability as someone who blocked or otherwise acted to screen some of the content of users of psychobabble, and the idea that his actions in this role created discomfort that could cause him to need insurance.
The act says that he has protection for his actions in that role.
His actions as a creator of content, ie a poster himself, unless he posts in that role of an owner who is monitoring content, would be a different matter. He wouldn't be liable though for giving someone a PBC and stating the reasons for it, for example-- or for sanctioning people in a way that was perceived as unfair.
I'm not sure what actions of his you find actionable.
Posted by Bryte on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 22, 2014, at 12:22:21
>"Section 230 of the [Communications Decency ACt] provides protection from liability to owners of internet forums and ISPs for content distributed through their site."
That is right. That references the types of vicarious liability or contributory liability discussed in a previous post. It addresses forum owners' liability for invitees' mischief. It does address forum owners' liability for content forum owners post on their own sites.
That might be the reason, in their otherwise systematic effort to provide a modicum of moderation, forums such as facebook, yahoo, twitter and scores of other well established social network ventures that enjoy the benefit of quality counsel avoid publishing particular statements about particular members' activities. They would be exempt from liability for members' statements they remove, and to some extent may be exempt from liability for asymmetric removal of content, but they might not be exempt from liability for their own public statements characterizing behavior of members who post particular content on their forums.
Section 230 is not widely recognized as providing forum owners protection from direct liability for harm that arises when forum owners' statements result in harm or adverse events among invitees.
For example, if an automaker maintained a forum in which members who reported fatalities due to faulty accelerators or flawed ignition switches in the automaker's products were not only systematically banned, but also invited to return to again and again be publicly sanctioned as troublemakers who spread falsehoods - after the automaker knew harm could result from the product - the automaker would not seem to be shielded by Section 203 from liability for its own statements it publishes in the forum it operates.
Forums committed to more impartial adjudication might better serve as venues for some complaints of harm that might result from activities of a forum owner who deliberately attracts psychologically at risk members while admitting the nature of his active involvement can be seen as throwing stones at members. On the other hand, it might be difficult for some at-risk invitees to stay away from an attraction where, by the owners' admission, some of the owners' activities purportedly styled to reduce anxiety triggers can reinforce unhealthy expectations.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:42
In reply to Re: Lou's warning-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cre/dvl, posted by pontormo on August 22, 2014, at 15:15:22
> My post addressed Bob's liability as someone who blocked or otherwise acted to screen some of the content of users of psychobabble, and the idea that his actions in this role created discomfort that could cause him to need insurance.
>
> The act says that he has protection for his actions in that role.
>
> His actions as a creator of content, ie a poster himself, unless he posts in that role of an owner who is monitoring content, would be a different matter. He wouldn't be liable though for giving someone a PBC and stating the reasons for it, for example-- or for sanctioning people in a way that was perceived as unfair.
>
> I'm not sure what actions of his you find actionable.portormo and friends,
It is written here,[...the act says that he has protection...he wouldn't be liable...for sanctioning...in an perceived unfair way...].
Now readers, I want you to know that these statements here could not be as accurate as they claim to be by reading what I am about to post here so that you can make a more informed decision as to accepting the poster's clam here or not.
The CDA does not give immunity to web site operators such as Mr. Hsiung (and his deputies of record as I will show here) if they develop the content or create it. Some rulings in he US hold the operator liable even if a third party posts it. The question that the high court needs to rule on is as to what is {developing or creating the content} have to have in order for it to be deemed as being created or developed. That question has already been decided in defamation law in the US and I will show you the principles involved to make that determination before CDA/230. And if the high court hears the parallel case, my friend-of-the-court brief will cover that. I am confident that justice Ginsberg could take heed to it and see what is happening here to use in some way for her opinion. This is because of that there are anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements directed at me by third-party posters being allowed here to be seen where they are originally posted as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking and he will not remove or sanction them as I have requested him to do.
This brings up the aspect of what is known as vicarious liability known as defamation by {ratification}. In cases before the CDA/230, let us suppose a hypothetical person, Helen Weilz, works at bakery that makes donuts. A coworker scribbles on the wall, "Helen Weilz is bigoted moron". Then Helen goes to the owner, Seymore Hienz, and wants the slogan removed. Seymore refuses and the slogan stays for months on the wall. People come in all day and buy donuts. Helen sues Seymore for {ratification} of the lible. This is all because Seymore knew of the libel and by not removing it effectively ratified the libel, or validated it. Seymore, the bakery owner, said that he was allowing it since he sold donuts, so that it would be good for the company as a hole. Helen sues Seymore for vicarious defamation. The court rules that by Seymore by not removing the defamation, he adopts what it purports as his own.
And let us suppose that instead of the slogan, a swastica was drawn on the wall and a Jewish employee asked that it be removed and Seymore refused. And then let us suppose that it came to light that Seymore spray painted the swastika on the wall. Would Seymore be guilty of defamation of the Jews? Or could Seymore justify the allowing of the swastika to remain on the grounds that he did not want those that wanted the swastika to be displayed have their feelings hurt if it was removed? Or could Seymore justify the leaving of the swastika on the wall on the basis that it is "art"?
Then there is another principle of defamation where a third party posts it. This I the aspect of what is known as {concert of action} that I will explain in my next post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:43
In reply to Lou's warning-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wrat, posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2014, at 10:05:16
> > My post addressed Bob's liability as someone who blocked or otherwise acted to screen some of the content of users of psychobabble, and the idea that his actions in this role created discomfort that could cause him to need insurance.
> >
> > The act says that he has protection for his actions in that role.
> >
> > His actions as a creator of content, ie a poster himself, unless he posts in that role of an owner who is monitoring content, would be a different matter. He wouldn't be liable though for giving someone a PBC and stating the reasons for it, for example-- or for sanctioning people in a way that was perceived as unfair.
> >
> > I'm not sure what actions of his you find actionable.
>
> portormo and friends,
> It is written here,[...the act says that he has protection...he wouldn't be liable...for sanctioning...in an perceived unfair way...].
> Now readers, I want you to know that these statements here could not be as accurate as they claim to be by reading what I am about to post here so that you can make a more informed decision as to accepting the poster's clam here or not.
> The CDA does not give immunity to web site operators such as Mr. Hsiung (and his deputies of record as I will show here) if they develop the content or create it. Some rulings in he US hold the operator liable even if a third party posts it. The question that the high court needs to rule on is as to what is {developing or creating the content} have to have in order for it to be deemed as being created or developed. That question has already been decided in defamation law in the US and I will show you the principles involved to make that determination before CDA/230. And if the high court hears the parallel case, my friend-of-the-court brief will cover that. I am confident that justice Ginsberg could take heed to it and see what is happening here to use in some way for her opinion. This is because of that there are anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements directed at me by third-party posters being allowed here to be seen where they are originally posted as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking and he will not remove or sanction them as I have requested him to do.
> This brings up the aspect of what is known as vicarious liability known as defamation by {ratification}. In cases before the CDA/230, let us suppose a hypothetical person, Helen Weilz, works at bakery that makes donuts. A coworker scribbles on the wall, "Helen Weilz is bigoted moron". Then Helen goes to the owner, Seymore Hienz, and wants the slogan removed. Seymore refuses and the slogan stays for months on the wall. People come in all day and buy donuts. Helen sues Seymore for {ratification} of the lible. This is all because Seymore knew of the libel and by not removing it effectively ratified the libel, or validated it. Seymore, the bakery owner, said that he was allowing it since he sold donuts, so that it would be good for the company as a hole. Helen sues Seymore for vicarious defamation. The court rules that by Seymore by not removing the defamation, he adopts what it purports as his own.
> And let us suppose that instead of the slogan, a swastica was drawn on the wall and a Jewish employee asked that it be removed and Seymore refused. And then let us suppose that it came to light that Seymore spray painted the swastika on the wall. Would Seymore be guilty of defamation of the Jews? Or could Seymore justify the allowing of the swastika to remain on the grounds that he did not want those that wanted the swastika to be displayed have their feelings hurt if it was removed? Or could Seymore justify the leaving of the swastika on the wall on the basis that it is "art"?
> Then there is another principle of defamation where a third party posts it. This I the aspect of what is known as {concert of action} that I will explain in my next post.
> Lou
>
Friends,
Now let's consider our hypothetical people, Seymore Hienz and Helen Weilz.
Let us suppose that Helen finds out that the slogan was put on the wall by a group of employees that broke in after hours. And one actually scribbled it on the wall, and another was a lookout, and another stole some donuts and another emptied the cash register. One of the actors goes to Seymore Hienz and confesses that they broke in and did what they did. Now Seymore calls the police, and erases the defamation on the wall. The police confront the others and they all confess. One member says that they only took the donuts, and another says that they did not take the money. And another says that they only broke the lock. And one said that they did nothing but look out the window.
The question here is:
A. Are all guilty of the theft of the money?
B. Are all guilty of the defamation on the wall?
C. Here Seymore acted on the grounds that he was doing what will be good for that community as a whole. Should he have not called the police on the grounds that the actors would feel bad by being arrested?
D. Are all of the actors guilty of all of the crimes?
E. Since the defamation was erased by Seymore, Helen does or does not have a claim for defamation?
F. Does it matter who ate the donuts?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:43
In reply to Lou's warning-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-inkon, posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2014, at 11:57:56
> > > My post addressed Bob's liability as someone who blocked or otherwise acted to screen some of the content of users of psychobabble, and the idea that his actions in this role created discomfort that could cause him to need insurance.
> > >
> > > The act says that he has protection for his actions in that role.
> > >
> > > His actions as a creator of content, ie a poster himself, unless he posts in that role of an owner who is monitoring content, would be a different matter. He wouldn't be liable though for giving someone a PBC and stating the reasons for it, for example-- or for sanctioning people in a way that was perceived as unfair.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what actions of his you find actionable.
> >
> > portormo and friends,
> > It is written here,[...the act says that he has protection...he wouldn't be liable...for sanctioning...in an perceived unfair way...].
> > Now readers, I want you to know that these statements here could not be as accurate as they claim to be by reading what I am about to post here so that you can make a more informed decision as to accepting the poster's clam here or not.
> > The CDA does not give immunity to web site operators such as Mr. Hsiung (and his deputies of record as I will show here) if they develop the content or create it. Some rulings in he US hold the operator liable even if a third party posts it. The question that the high court needs to rule on is as to what is {developing or creating the content} have to have in order for it to be deemed as being created or developed. That question has already been decided in defamation law in the US and I will show you the principles involved to make that determination before CDA/230. And if the high court hears the parallel case, my friend-of-the-court brief will cover that. I am confident that justice Ginsberg could take heed to it and see what is happening here to use in some way for her opinion. This is because of that there are anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements directed at me by third-party posters being allowed here to be seen where they are originally posted as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking and he will not remove or sanction them as I have requested him to do.
> > This brings up the aspect of what is known as vicarious liability known as defamation by {ratification}. In cases before the CDA/230, let us suppose a hypothetical person, Helen Weilz, works at bakery that makes donuts. A coworker scribbles on the wall, "Helen Weilz is bigoted moron". Then Helen goes to the owner, Seymore Hienz, and wants the slogan removed. Seymore refuses and the slogan stays for months on the wall. People come in all day and buy donuts. Helen sues Seymore for {ratification} of the lible. This is all because Seymore knew of the libel and by not removing it effectively ratified the libel, or validated it. Seymore, the bakery owner, said that he was allowing it since he sold donuts, so that it would be good for the company as a hole. Helen sues Seymore for vicarious defamation. The court rules that by Seymore by not removing the defamation, he adopts what it purports as his own.
> > And let us suppose that instead of the slogan, a swastica was drawn on the wall and a Jewish employee asked that it be removed and Seymore refused. And then let us suppose that it came to light that Seymore spray painted the swastika on the wall. Would Seymore be guilty of defamation of the Jews? Or could Seymore justify the allowing of the swastika to remain on the grounds that he did not want those that wanted the swastika to be displayed have their feelings hurt if it was removed? Or could Seymore justify the leaving of the swastika on the wall on the basis that it is "art"?
> > Then there is another principle of defamation where a third party posts it. This I the aspect of what is known as {concert of action} that I will explain in my next post.
> > Lou
> >
> Friends,
> Now let's consider our hypothetical people, Seymore Hienz and Helen Weilz.
> Let us suppose that Helen finds out that the slogan was put on the wall by a group of employees that broke in after hours. And one actually scribbled it on the wall, and another was a lookout, and another stole some donuts and another emptied the cash register. One of the actors goes to Seymore Hienz and confesses that they broke in and did what they did. Now Seymore calls the police, and erases the defamation on the wall. The police confront the others and they all confess. One member says that they only took the donuts, and another says that they did not take the money. And another says that they only broke the lock. And one said that they did nothing but look out the window.
> The question here is:
> A. Are all guilty of the theft of the money?
> B. Are all guilty of the defamation on the wall?
> C. Here Seymore acted on the grounds that he was doing what will be good for that community as a whole. Should he have not called the police on the grounds that the actors would feel bad by being arrested?
> D. Are all of the actors guilty of all of the crimes?
> E. Since the defamation was erased by Seymore, Helen does or does not have a claim for defamation?
> F. Does it matter who ate the donuts?
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Now another hypothetical person enters this situation, Ivan Skidyvan. Ivan is the police officer that Seymore called.
Officer Skidyvan arrests only the person that ate the donuts and allows all the others to be allowed to escape arrest.
A. Would the person that ate the donuts feel discriminated upon?
B. Could that discrimination cause harm to that person?
C. If the person that ate the donuts that was arrested while all the others were allowed to go free, was a person that was vulnerable to feelings of outrage, and taking mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, have the potential to kill themselves as a result of the discrimination by officer skidyvan?
D. In court, officer Skidyvan was cross-examined by the person's lawyer that ate the donuts.
Question from lawyer: Why did you arrest this person but not the others?
Officer Skidyvan: I did not want the others to feel bad.
Question from lawyer: Do you practice this all the time?
Officer Skidyvan; I used to apply arrests equally but changed to using selective enforcement of the laws.
Lawyer: What criteria do you use to arrest people now in your selective enforcement of the laws?
Officer Skidyvan: I am not going to tell you that. I do what I think will be good for the community as a whole and please try and trust me in that.
Lawyer: Have you ever been wrong?
Officer Skidyvan:
Yes, many times.
Lawyer: Then what do you do?
Officer Skidyvan; I change the law in my own mind so that I think that I did right even though I did wrong.
Lawyer: How do you know what is right or wrong?
Officer Skidyvan: Since I do what will be good for the community as a whole, there is no right or wrong.
Lawyer: How do you know if by using selective enforcement of the laws it will be good for the community as a whole?
Officer Skidyvan: I don't. I say that because it can not be known if what is done, or not done, will be good for the community as a whole until the future beyond anyone's life span. So in that case that is why I say to trust me.
Lawyer: Do you know who else said what you are saying?
Officer Skidyvan: Yes, and they were able to fool the people for a long time. They even had people trusting them when they committed genocide and slavery and infanticide and discrimination and segregation. They had people believing that it would be good for the community as a whole. They even told the people that they were using the Golden Rule and are being fair.
Lawyer: How could discrimination be fair?
rest
Lou
Posted by Bryte on August 26, 2014, at 22:20:14
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 26, 2014, at 13:20:56
> > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
> >
> > Yes, I can.
>
> Great, please do.
>
> BobI did.
Now how about you?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 4:05:05
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Bryte on August 26, 2014, at 22:20:14
> > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
> > >
> > > Yes, I can.
> >
> > Great, please do.
>
> I did.I must have missed it, can you post a link? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ClearSkies on August 28, 2014, at 5:13:12
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 4:05:05
> > > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I can.
> > >
> > > Great, please do.
> >
> > I did.
>
> I must have missed it, can you post a link? Thanks,
>
> Bob
>How many times have I seen this tactic used when someone has reached a dead end of a discussion? This is a sign. I only know from obversation and experience.
Carry on.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2014, at 9:25:41
In reply to Re: discussion (interjection), posted by ClearSkies on August 28, 2014, at 5:13:12
> > > > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I can.
> > > >
> > > > Great, please do.
> > >
> > > I did.
> >
> > I must have missed it, can you post a link? Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> How many times have I seen this tactic used when someone has reached a dead end of a discussion? This is a sign. I only know from obversation and experience.
> Carry on.
>
ClearSkies wrote,[...this tactic used...].
There are many tactics that I can expose here that are being used that IMHHHO could mark the difference between you being a live person or a corpse. This is because when these tactics that I will expose here are used, a subset of readers that are not aware that they are being deceived, could be deceived and be misled which could lead vulnerable people to kill themselves or lead to murder. This is because when a population like this here that are led to believe to take mind-altering drugs in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor are misled, they could falsely believe that there is justification for anti-Semitic hate to stand here and what they are doing will be good for their community as a whole. This is seen as that anti-Semitic statements and defamation toward me are allowed to be seen where the are originally posted as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by a subset of readers.
In deception by evasion, there generally accepted types of evasion which some are:
A. Declining to answer
B. Saying that they are unable or unwilling to answer
C. Deferring the question
D. Pleading ignorance
E. Saying someone else has to answer
When evasion is used, readers could be deceived and misled. This generally happens by the tactic of answering by stating an irrelevant statement that if true, could mislead readers into thinking that what is in question is true also, but that could not be and lead to a false conclusion. And even if it is true, the statement could be irrelevant to what is in question. A classic example is what I showed in an exchange with Phillipa and Mr. Hsiung. There are many more here and if readers that see these tactics like ClearSkies can object here, I think that lives could be saved here.
Lou
Posted by ClearSkies on August 28, 2014, at 11:01:12
In reply to Lou's response-GreytDesptshun » ClearSkies, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2014, at 9:25:41
I am projecting here, to be clear: but I believe it might be a desire to not further pursue a discussion, and nothing more meaningful than that.
Pardon me if I am misconstruing.
ClearSkies
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2014, at 13:08:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response-GreytDesptshun » Lou Pilder, posted by ClearSkies on August 28, 2014, at 11:01:12
> I am projecting here, to be clear: but I believe it might be a desire to not further pursue a discussion, and nothing more meaningful than that.
>
> Pardon me if I am misconstruing.
> ClearSkiesClearSkies wrote,[...it might be a desire to not further pursue a discussion...].
That is Ok for anyone to have a desire to not pursue a discussion, but for me I want to save lives here and for me to uncover what could mislead you and deceive you needs for me to pursue this discussion.
One of the classic tactics of deceit is to use evasion. To understand how different tactics used in evasion , I want to present examples for readers to use in determining if evasion is being used so they might not be mislead. Let us look at this example and then look at that there are unanswered questions which is the tactic of just not answering that could be seen by a subset of readers as evasion:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068737.html
Posted by bryte on August 28, 2014, at 23:00:15
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 4:05:05
> > > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I can.
> > >
> > > Great, please do.
> >
> > I did.
>
> I must have missed it, can you post a link? Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>>>>If guests were attracted to ... the presence of a clinical licensed professional and the relationship proved to be a nuisance because the clinically licensed professional deploys untested techniques that damage the mental tranquility of invitees known to already be at risk, would that comprise an attractive nuisance?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069800.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=attractive+nuisance
>>>Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ... does not shield service providers from liability [for messages] the provider "take[s] responsibility for."www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069599.html/msgs/1070152.html
> The poster could feel like I'm throwing a stone at them.>>>Do you select whom you engage in ways that could lead that person to feel you are throwing a stone at them?
>>>Do you have ... a consistent policy for balancing the risk of reinforcement against the advantage of removing a trigger to which you exposed an invitee?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069473.html
>>>Are you saying do not capriciously enforce arbitrary ad hoc rules .... by anybody's definition?>>>Or are you saying that you ... do not knowingly do so?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070152.html
>>>...a common interest in harm reduction... Do you think my concerns are different than your concerns?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070108.html
>>>If someone were harmed, would you want to make them or their surviving family whole? Do you believe no harm could result, or that you could in no way be liable [for] harm that results from your activities here?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069800.html
Posted by bryte on August 28, 2014, at 23:23:24
In reply to Re: discussion (interjection), posted by ClearSkies on August 28, 2014, at 5:13:12
> > > > > > Can you say more
> How many times have I seen this tactic
"[T]his tactic" could address a broad open ended question that makes only general reference to previously specified concerns.Or, "this tactic" could address a reference to previously described concerns in response to a general open-ended question that does not recognize previously specified concerns.
Even if we presume reference to "this tactic" reveals a bias toward one or the other definition, we cannot count how many times. We cannot count the times because we cannot measure the extent to which observations and experiences in fact revealed signs of the end of a discussion.
Errors in observation can arise from bias and reactivity.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 23:39:33
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by bryte on August 28, 2014, at 23:00:15
> > > > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
I didn't mean what your concerns were, I meant why you have those concerns, what you hope to accomplish here, etc. Something about you. I-statements.
Bob
Posted by bryte on August 28, 2014, at 23:55:05
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2014, at 23:39:33
> > > > > > > Can you say more about your interest or concern about whether I have insurance?
>
> I didn't mean what your concerns were, I meant why you have those concerns, what you hope to accomplish here, etc. Something about you. I-statements.
>
> BobI think my concerns are more about offering support and education than getting some for myself.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2014, at 12:39:11
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by bryte on August 28, 2014, at 23:55:05
> I think my concerns are more about offering support and education than getting some for myself.
OK, you're on the altruistic side. That's great. It's always good to have more sources of support and education,
Bob
Posted by bryte on August 30, 2014, at 13:27:42
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2014, at 12:39:11
> OK, you're on the altruistic side. That's great. It's always good to have more sources of support and education,
>
> BobInterest in my altruism would be more believable if you would address my concern.
Are you flying without a net, with nothing more than your self-confidence to assure the group that no harm results from the attraction you create?
Posted by pontormo on August 30, 2014, at 21:57:27
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by bryte on August 30, 2014, at 13:27:42
As I recall from my registration, Bob says that he's not directly responsible for posts, and that he doesn't closely monitor and supervise them for either accuracy or wisdom. Plus
there's no suggestion that because a trained mental health professional owns the site, that there's greater protection here for participants. Quite the reverse, I thought.So there is a point at which people assume the risk for things that they do, especially if they're informed that a risk of some sort is involved. So I have always believed that we as posters were assuming some risk by coming here.
I too was wondering why you were so concerned about the issue of insurance and legal liability. i was thinking that usually this would mean that you feel youve observed here that's raised the issue for you. Or that possibly something in your own life makes this particularly important-- since for example and to the contrary I've never even given this a moment's thought.
Posted by bryte on August 30, 2014, at 22:35:29
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by pontormo on August 30, 2014, at 21:57:27
> there's no suggestion that because a trained mental health professional owns the site, that there's greater protection here for participants. Quite the reverse, I thought.
What is "best of both worlds?"
But if it is quite the reverse, my concerns are all the much more relevant.
> I've never even given this a moment's thought.Then either my posts introduce you to new interests, or they do not interest you. I trust some people find these interests important and appreciate an opportunity to consider the matter in a different light.
Posted by pontormo on August 31, 2014, at 0:32:52
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by bryte on August 30, 2014, at 22:35:29
I guess my point in saying that I hadn't thought about it went to the idea that you might have some personal reaction or special concern that you might be willing to communicate.
When I find someone having a puzzling and seemingly somewhat perseverant reaction, it helps if I can see how the reaction might have arisen.
It's not that I don't find the question interesting--- I wouldn't have spent the time I have researching it, if I didn't. But after looking into it, I remain unclear how it would contribute to either my or Bob's sense of security in using or setting up the site.
I may not have considered some element that you see. Or you may have some greater sensitivity to potential harms than I do. Lots of people have left, presumably because it was no longer part of their self-interest or well-being to stay-- most unfortunately. But how would Bob's having insurance have prevented that, or convinced them to be more trusting?
Posted by pontormo on August 31, 2014, at 0:48:59
In reply to Re: discussion, posted by pontormo on August 30, 2014, at 21:57:27
PS Moreover, to clarify: my "quite the reverse"-- I was saying the "IMPRESSION ONE GETS FROM THE REGISTRATION FORM" is quite the reverse from the idea that there is a mental health professional closely monitoring or otherwise assuring the safety of the site for the vulnerable.
Rather one gets the impression that the site is mainly composed of posts from other posters, that while the spirit here is to be civil and there is some oversight of that-- everyone is more or less left to sort it out for themselves.
I was not suggesting that because a mental health professional, was the webmaster, the site was IN FACT any less protective.
Perhaps that was how you had read it?
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.