![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:49:43
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:26:47
NikkiT2,
You asked me to show the posts that defame me.
There was a post titled, Why do you let Lou Post here? and I think it was by you.
I consider that to be a blatent attempt to arrouse ill-will to me by others. To advocate expulsion of a person is defamation toward that person. No one needs or should be requiered to defend their presence here for it is a public forum open to all.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 9:01:10
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:26:47
"..I consider it a transparrent attempt to gain sympathy when no sympathy is deserverd"
And thats not defamation of my character??!! *laughing*
What I was simply trying to point out, is that you are not free of what you accuse others. You pointed out to me that I had misspelled something.. I simply pointed out that you do this too.
The other time you attacked me, you denied it. Yes, I may have been wrong to use the words I did, and I apologise for that, I hsould ahve thought my rpely through more and used better words.
But you have defamed me (your choice of words, not mine. I would not call what was said defamation, but thats just a personal opinion), so you are just as bad as anyone else. To say you are perfect, because your god is perfect, is incorrect.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 9:12:07
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 9:01:10
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"To say you are perfect because your god is perfect is incorrect."
The moderator here, aka DR. Bob, may allow you to continue with your defamation toward me. You have wrote that I said something that I did not say. I did not say that I am perfect. I wrote that I am made in the image of my God and to call His workmanship by creating me to be nasty, then you are saying that my God is nasty. My God does not make nasty works. In my creation, I was created in His image. And after He created man He said ...and it is good.... What happened after that is not my God's doing.
Was it not you that wrote that others hear take what I write and misuse it in an attempt to defame me?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 9:24:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 9:01:10
NikkiT2,
You wrote, 'You pointed out that I had misspelled something.
That is not entirerly correct. I requested that you clarify a word or clarify why there was a word in front of my name. You wrote,"The" Lou and I made a request for clarification and you replied that it was a typo. I made no correction to your spelling which is different from requesting clarification of a word that did not make sense in its context and needed a clarification in order to respond accordingly. In another post of yours, there was a word that was incomprehensible as to how the letters were arranged and such and I did not correct your spelling but asked for you to clarify whatyou intended the word to be so I could respond to your post.
Your false portryal of me in this manner, I consider to be defamation by you toward me.
Then you wrote that I was an openly offensive person. Could you tell me why you wrote that I weas an openly offensive person? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2003, at 9:46:55
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:26:47
> you had just attcked me in a very nasty way
>
> NikkiT2> I consider your claim of innocemce because of what you wrote to constitute what is called a pretext and I consider it a transparrent attempt to gain sympathy when no sympathy is deserverd.
>
> LouPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 9:49:16
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post sp » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 9:24:36
If you're going to see everything I write as an attack, there is no point me writing anything further.
If you honestly, truthfully, in your heart, beieve that the whole Drippy2 thing was not a nastyt hing for you to do, please continue to live a happy life.
I believe that it was a nasty thing you did. Others believed this too.Good bye Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2003, at 10:28:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post sp, posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 9:49:16
> I believe that it was a nasty thing you did.
Sorry, but I asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
Bob
Posted by stjames on August 21, 2003, at 10:44:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 19:29:07
> Lou, I am really trying to understand this. Why did you write this:
>
> for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.I still have not gottan an answer on this, so
I think it is best to leave this alone. Don't post to me, Lou, and I will not post to you.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 21, 2003, at 12:25:07
In reply to Re: blocked for week » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2003, at 10:28:01
I can't say I've disagreed with a block yet, but Nikki did say, "I believe that it was a nasty thing you did." Wouldn't that constitute an "I-statement"? Just wondering...
Posted by Susan J on August 21, 2003, at 12:50:10
In reply to A short introduction on defamation, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 19:00:56
Hi, guys,
In law, there is only a remedy (fines, jail time, ordered retractions, etc.) if there is an injury. Just saying something mean or hurtful or even spreading an outright lie, in itself, is not defamation.
The emphasis has to be on the injury it causes to the defamed person's GOOD REPUTATION. Defamation would only occur at this site if words tended to lower an individual's reputation within this community. I don't think it's applicable here.
Black's Law Dictionary Definition - Defamation - an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name. There has to be a GOOD REPUTATION there to injure for defamation to occur. A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.***
Also, we have no right to free speech here. That is a right conferred on us that allows us to express our thoughts and views without "governmental" restrictions. Dr. Bob can restrict our speech as he sees fit.
There is no perfect system, but there is perfect intent. And even though we sometimes step over the line of propriety, I truly believe most people here want to support and nurture and comfort one another.
I applaud those with the strength to leave this thread if they didn't see anything productive come of it. Obviously, I don't have that strength. :-)
Posted by fallsfall on August 21, 2003, at 12:56:44
In reply to The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims, posted by Susan J on August 21, 2003, at 12:50:10
Thank you for the clarification
Posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:30:44
In reply to The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims, posted by Susan J on August 21, 2003, at 12:50:10
Posted by BekkaH on August 21, 2003, at 22:44:43
In reply to Re: blocked for week » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on August 21, 2003, at 10:28:01
Dr. Bob,
Perhaps you didn't know that NikkiT2 had surgery yesterday with general anesthesia. She had a dangerous drop in blood pressure and temperature, and she has been on some strong pain killers for over 24 hours. I hope that you will take this into consideration and unblock her. I'm sure she didn't mean any harm, and considering what she has been through in the past day or so, she should NOT be blocked from PB. If she weren't still under the influence of the painkillers and the leftover general anesthesia, then I wouldn't be posting this, but this is clearly an exceptional case. By the way, I had surgery with general anesthesia a couple of years ago, and I felt as if I wasn't in control of myself and my behavior for 4-6 weeks.
Bekka
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 1:28:01
In reply to The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims, posted by Susan J on August 21, 2003, at 12:50:10
> The emphasis has to be on the injury it causes to the defamed person's GOOD REPUTATION. Defamation would only occur at this site if words tended to lower an individual's reputation within this community. I don't think it's applicable here.
>
I don't see why it wouldn't be? Granted it's an anonymous forum, but it is a public one. And a community in its own right. Moreover, people have in the past been recognized from the content of their posts in real life, so there would be a real life community reputation to protect as well.Although I will grant that it's not relevant to the civility standards. The civility standards are applied by Dr. Bob so as to protect all, whatever their reputations.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 1:45:27
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by Ame Sans Vie on August 21, 2003, at 12:25:07
> I can't say I've disagreed with a block yet, but Nikki did say, "I believe that it was a nasty thing you did." Wouldn't that constitute an "I-statement"? Just wondering...
> > don't just try to disguise [a you-statement] as [an I-statement], as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard".
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilBob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 1:45:59
In reply to Re: The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 1:28:01
I do understand your convictions about defamation, and share them.
However, I've always felt that a speakers words tell more about the speaker than whoever is spoken about. If someone, for example, makes racist comments in my presence, it wouldn't affect my view of the race being discussed. It would affect my view of the speaker of the racist remarks.
If someone gossips in my presence, I would draw more conclusions about the person gossiping than the person being gossiped about.
And if someone posts unkindly towards someone else, it wouldn't at all affect my view of the person being posted about. After all, in this site the person being posted about is also posting. And people can draw their own conclusions.
So, to be specific, Lou. My opinion of you is shaped by your own posts. Not the posts of anyone else. In the way you respond to unkindness, you are saying something about yourself. When you extend a hand in kindness (as you have to me) you are saying something about yourself. When you observe the rules of this site to the best of your ability, you are saying something about yourself. When you observe your block time without re-registering under another name, you are saying something about yourself.
I'm really glad of the civility rules. I like the way Dr. Bob's site isn't the free for all melees you might see on other sites. And it does hurt when someone criticizes your posting style or your personality, or anything else. I certainly know that as much as anyone.
But Lou, in the end, your posts speak far more loudly about you than anyone else does. Which is fortunate (and part of the natural order of this beautifully balanced universe) since in the end you can only control what you do or say, not what others do or say. Darn it! :)
I wish you peace and health, Lou. (And I'd still like to continue our discussion on Faith.)
Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:03:09
In reply to Dr. Bob -- please read regarding NikkiT2, posted by BekkaH on August 21, 2003, at 22:44:43
> I'm sure she didn't mean any harm, and considering what she has been through in the past day or so, she should NOT be blocked from PB... I had surgery with general anesthesia a couple of years ago, and I felt as if I wasn't in control of myself and my behavior for 4-6 weeks.
It's great that you're supporting Nikki. But the way I see it, people can cause harm even if they don't mean to, and it might be better for the community as a whole if people who aren't in control of themselves don't post. Sorry if that sounds heartless...
Bob
Posted by Simcha on August 22, 2003, at 2:20:11
In reply to Re: intent and control, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 2:03:09
> > I'm sure she didn't mean any harm, and considering what she has been through in the past day or so, she should NOT be blocked from PB... I had surgery with general anesthesia a couple of years ago, and I felt as if I wasn't in control of myself and my behavior for 4-6 weeks.
>
> It's great that you're supporting Nikki. But the way I see it, people can cause harm even if they don't mean to, and it might be better for the community as a whole if people who aren't in control of themselves don't post. Sorry if that sounds heartless...
>
> BobOh, no Bob, no one would ever accuse you of being heartless. Why, that would be "uncivil."
Simcha
Posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 6:57:50
In reply to Re: The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 1:28:01
>>I don't think it's applicable here.
>
> I don't see why it wouldn't be?<<Dinah, I read your post to Lou about defamation and how his words do more to shape your (or anyone's) opinions about him than anything anyone else writes, and that is such a GREAT way to put it.
It's what I was trying to get at. I don't think ANYONE is trying to defame Lou at all. That what I was trying to say, albeit awkwardly, with my post on defamation.
Thanks. :-)
Susan
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 7:55:21
In reply to Re: The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims » Dinah, posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 6:57:50
> >>I don't think it's applicable here.
> >
> > I don't see why it wouldn't be?
>
> <<Dinah, I read your post to Lou about defamation and how his words do more to shape your (or anyone's) opinions about him than anything anyone else writes, and that is such a GREAT way to put it.
>
> It's what I was trying to get at. I don't think ANYONE is trying to defame Lou at all. That what I was trying to say, albeit awkwardly, with my post on defamation.
>
> Thanks. :-)
>
> Susan
>Thank you. :)
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 8:11:18
In reply to Re: The Lawyer Weighs In on Defamation Claims » Susan J, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 7:55:21
Dinah,
In your post there is the statement,,
{...I do not think that anyone is trying to defame Lou...].
Well, this depends on what is considered to be defamation toward some one and it depends on the jurisdictio that the statement is made and where the statement goes to. This is what I was attempting to show and had to stop. You see, defamation is not only some statement per se that is defaming. When black people were forced to sitt on the back of the bus, that was defamation to black people, even though noone said anything.
You see, some types of defamation are not written or spoken. Slavery is defamation. Segregation is defamation . Descrimimation is defamation to . Requiereng one to be stigmatized is defamation. Sexual harrassment is defamation. Cruel remarks about someone's disability is defamation to some. Innuendo is defamation.
There is a thread hear bring up a certian poster. That is defaming, for they have not identified the poster so that that poster could be confronted with their accuser.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 8:24:30
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 8:11:18
Lou, That wasn't written by me. It was written in another post to me, and I included that post in my reply.
Here is my post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/252997.html
It is my opinion, expressed before, that there is a lot that is said to you that would hurt me no end if it were said to me. And that it hurts me just to hear it said to you. Some of it Dr. Bob does not address.
And that is what usually hurts me worse. When someone writes something that hurts my feelings, I am distressed. When Dr. Bob doesn't "protect" me in the way I would like him to, I feel angry. Enormously angry.
I'll share with you a story. Once I got so, so angry that Dr. Bob decided a post was not uncivil even though it hurt my feelings that I wrote a horrible angry post. I doubt that it was uncivil because although it was angry, I directed the anger towards myself. It may not have gotten me a Please Be Civil, but it may well have brought the cops to my door. I hit send and confirm, and consider it to be only by the grace of God that the site was down at the time, and my post didn't go through.
So I understand *completely* how you feel. Or maybe you don't. I have to remember that I feel hurt and angry, and that that may not necessarily be how you feel, because we are all different in our responses.
My post to you was intended to address the hurt and anger I thought you might be feeling. Those feelings can eat away at your core, I know from my own experience. I know you have your Gates, just as I have my scriptures, and that your Gates might help your soul to be protected and healed as my scriptures do. I was concerned about your health, Lou, and your feelings.
My apologies to you if I misunderstood what you felt, if I took what I would feel under the circumstances, and assumed that you felt the same when in fact you didn't.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 8:35:34
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 8:24:30
Dinah,
You wrote,[...if what was said to you was said to me, I would be hurt also....].
Thank you for pointing out that what I consider defamation toward me by potsers here, would be, at least, {hurtfull} to you. I consider {hutfull} statement to constitute defamation.
Lou
Posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 8:46:26
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 8:11:18
Lou,
>>You see, defamation is not only some statement per se that is defaming. When black people were forced to sitt on the back of the bus, that was defamation to black people, even though noone said anything.
<<This is not defamation. It is cruel, it is inhumane, it is humiliating, it is insulting, but it is not defamation.>>You see, some types of defamation are not written or spoken. Slavery is defamation. Segregation is defamation....
<<You asked me what I do for a living. I'm an attorney. I work for legislators. So, I want to clarify exactly what defamation is.Defamation, is by definition, something written (libel) or publicly spoken (slander) that harms the good reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community.
Oh, and as for that ruling by Washington you are asking for on whether this site violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, I could tell you, but then I'd have to bill you. :-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 9:00:59
In reply to These are not examples of defamation » Lou Pilder, posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 8:46:26
Susan J,
You wrote,[...thes are not defamation...]
Well, they may not be actionable as defamation in a suit for such, let's say in the US.
But I was trying to tell of a different type of defamation than that. It is the drfamation of the soul.
Slavery, segregation, stigmatisation, descrimination, sexuall harrassment, ridicule, hate, innuendo, accomodating another's hatred toward another person, racism, etc. etc...
Whether xyz makes a statement that is considered by the law to be defamation is not my concern here. My concern is that this is a mental helth website and that the ones that I mentioned , {it is I}, not the Supreme court that considers it defamation.
You write that you are an attorny. You may be trained in the law. But are we to be discussants here based on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
Lou
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.