![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 22:05:27
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post-rulot?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 21:41:09
Friends,
It is written here as a response to the question as to if one could ask NikkiT2 to identify the poster that is referred to in her statement,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...] something like that,{she can not do in order to stay in the guidlines of this site...}.
I am requesting that you ask your self the following if you are going to reply to this aspect.
A. If it can not be posted as the name of the person that threatened to sue for defamation to be acceptable in relation to the guidlines of this site, then how can it be posted as "someone" and be acceptable, if "someone " could be at least one of many memmbers here?
B. If identifying the poster in,[...someone threatened to sue me for defamation...]is not acceptable, what could be your opinion as to why others ask me to ask NikkiT2 for her to identify the poster here?
C. If someone wrote here, as an example, [...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...] and there was a member here that did make that threat, could the post be acceptable here?
D. If , in the above example, there was not a member here that threatened to sue the poster for defamation, could that statement be acceptable here or could it be considered a false accusation?
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:25:43
In reply to Lou's response to Racer's post-rulot?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 21:41:09
> Friends,
> It is written here as pertaining to the question as to why NikkiT2 has not identified the person in the statement by NikkiT2,[...someone {here} threatened to sue me for defamation...],{...because by {asking} in a {general way} she does not create a situation in which someone feels accused or put down....}.I mistyped, Lou. I meant that had Nikki chosen to name the person in question, it might not have been considered allowable on this site.
I have a question for you, though, Lou:
Since you are continuing to question whether or not Nikki has a right to express herself on this matter, does that mean that you believe her to be referring to you because you did, in fact, threaten to sue her for defamation?
If so, I can certainly understand your discomfort and distress. I would hate to think that I had made such a threat to anyone, personally, and it would bother me even more if that threat was made public.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:08:42
In reply to Response and open question » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:25:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...you are continuing to question whether or not Nikki has a right to express herself...].
I do not believe that I am questioning anyone here as to what they can express themselves about.
I am responding generally to posts by others here and in my response I am enerally requesting for those that are considering posting to this thread to consider things in their response.
These are requests from me that I feel could be helpfull in understanding the aspects of the discussion so that others have more infomation to draw on to post their response.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:33:32
In reply to Response and open question » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:25:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...you did ,in fact, threaten to sue her for defamation...].
I do not believe that I have ever thretened to sue NikkiT2 for defamation.
I have my own limitations with memory and I am requesting for anyone here, which would include NikkiT2, that knows of such a threat,to post a URL from this forum, or another forum, or some other type of communication such as an email or babblemail or fax or such that writes, if there is such in existance, that I, or anyone else, threatened NikkiT2 with a suit for defamation.
People have asked me here to ask NikkiT2 to identify the poster here that made the threat to her. Then another writes that it would not be acceptable for her to do so as what they thought the reason was that NikkiT2 has not identified the member here that made the threat.
I am not requesting that a determination be made as to if it is acceptable or not here to post[....someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...]. I am requesting that others here that are considering responding to the thread in question to ask themselves some questions that I have offerd in order to give more light about the aspects of the discussion.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:53:57
In reply to Response and open question » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 22:25:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...It would bother me if the threat was made public...]
Folks,
Let us look at the poster's statement. The statement writes,[...Someone {here} has threatened to sue me for defamation...].
I ask;
A. Could there be someone here botherd by that statement?
B. Is there a threat that is made public?
C. Is there the potential for others here to think that the person, or persons, that is the person or persons that has made the threat, one that NikkiT2 has written statements that have the potential to be defaming to the poster, or posters here?
D. If NikkiT2 has written such statements, to whom has NikkiT2 written them to?
E. If there are members, or one member here, that have had statements by NikkiT2 directed to them that had the potential to be considered defaming to them, then could others here have the potential to think that those members, or one member, could be the one, or ones likely, that NikkiT2 is writing about in her statement,[...someone here has threatened to sue me for defmation...]?
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:22:14
In reply to Lou's responsetoaspects o this thread-liklysuspec?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:53:57
Very well, then, since this thread seems to be coming back to this over and over again:
Nikki, if you still have the communication which threatens you with a suit for defamation under US laws, can you just post the contents of it here, with a full identification of the person who sent it?
Thank you.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:34:02
In reply to Lou's responsetoaspects o this thread-liklysuspec?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:53:57
Lou,
I asked you why you don't ask Nikki directly because it appears to me by the number of your posts about this topic that you are highly interested in who Nikki is referring to. And thus, if you are indeed interested, then I would advocate asking a direct question. That seems to me to be the best way to get a direct answer. I recognize; however, that you do not feel able to do this.It's very clear to me that you are concerned about this issue. You've communicated that concern adequately. I'm not sure that you will ever get the type of answer you might be looking for, and Nikki has stated she does not wish to discuss this further.
I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies, "The Princess Bride", in which Westley says to Inigo, "Get used to disappointment," after Inigo said "I must know" the identity of the Man in Black. I fear you may be disappointed in your quest for identification.
I'd like to offer a suggestion, if I may. I'd like to see you wait and see what answers might be forthcoming before you post more questions about this topic. Perhaps you could take a break for yourself and do something enjoyable while you wait for a response you find satisfactory?
What do you think?
gg
Posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:37:24
In reply to Lou's responsetoaspects o this thread-liklysuspec?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:53:57
First of all, there are fine lines and grey areas and all that in US law, and the laws of the US really only apply to people in the US. We'll all take that as given, yes?
As far as what is considered actionable when made public -- such as posted on a bulletin board -- there are distinctions: If I were to say something like, "Thomas Jefferson was a great man," that's OK, because it's pretty much opinion. It's something that that hypothetical Reasonable Person would recognize as an opinion, and so it's pretty safe from a legal standpoint. If, on the other hand, I were to say that he had done something specific -- "Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence," for example -- I would have to be very careful. That is not opinion, it's something I am presenting as fact.
Those are examples based on an historical figure, and it's good things. Let's make it negative:
"Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" -- that's something I can actually say, especially since it's also the title of a book. If I were to say, though, something like "Rush Limbaugh is fat because he steals cream puffs from the little bakery called MomNPop down the street," well, that's not OK, because I've just made a specific claim that can be considered defamatory. But, if I could prove that it's true -- all the parts, that he is fat, that he steals the cream puffs, and that that is THE reason he's fat -- then I am a lot safer.
But you know what's really important here? There is such a backlash against "frivolous" lawsuits in the US that courts are starting to reprimand attorneys who bring questionable suits to court. And same goes for small claims court in some jurisdictions. No reputable lawyer is going to take on a case regarding something someone posts here on Psycho-Babble, unless we write something that is so specific, and so inflammatory, and we identify the person involved precisely. That means that we'd pretty much have to say, "It was the person named [x], who lives at number [y] [z] street, and was born on [date.]"
On the other hand, trying to bring a suit for defamation based on something posted here could conceivably lead to a judge punishing the plaintiff for bringing such a suit. Depending on the jurisdiction.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2005, at 0:48:03
In reply to Asking directly » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:34:02
gg,
You wrote,[...you are interested...wait...].
I am responding to posts by others her and generally request that others consider aspects of the discussion to include if thet are considering posting to the discussion.
Someone here has requested for the identification of the member that [...threatened to sue for defamation...]. If that is posted, then we could know who the member is and see what was written.
Dr. Hsiung writes something like that he knows it if it can be seen. I agree with him. For could it not also be written that [..I do not know it unless it can be seen...]?
You wrote,[....you are concerned...]. I think that you are also. But I think that it may be past the Midnight Hour.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 2:00:49
In reply to The Elephant in the Room -- Is Nikki here? HELP!, posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:22:14
Sorry, I slept through this all since my last post.. Time differences and all that.
You know, I just have no interest in continuing this.
It was all a lng time ago now, caused me a fair amount of pain at the time, and I was simply using it as an example in a very interesting discussion with crushedout.
I should have remembered that interesting dicussions simply don't work here anymore.
I'm withdrawing entirely from this thread. I need all my brain power for a V important interview this morning for my virtually perfect job..
Thankyou everyone for the support.. I will get round to sending lots of babblemails this weekend, but right now hair and makeup needs doing to make myself look perfect *G*
Nikki xx
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 2:02:34
In reply to Asking directly » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:34:02
Someone that quotes The Princess Bride has GOT to be a good person!!
Isn't it just the MOST quitable film ever?!!
*plans a rewatch this weekend*
Nikki xxx
Posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 2:12:10
In reply to Re: Asking directly » gardenergirl, posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 2:02:34
I called my ex over the weekend, and when he answered I said, "My name is Inigo Montoya..." He cracked up. Not to mention all the times I've told him the One Thing You Never Want To Do...
My husband and I use it, too.
And I once showed the Jellybean mare as Princess Buttercup...
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 10:34:24
In reply to The Elephant in the Room -- Is Nikki here? HELP!, posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:22:14
This whole thing started because of one part of one sentence Nikki said in a conversation about US law and constitution.
It was said in passing and it didn't identify anyone.
But with all this uproar (I posted it above) I did some archive looking, which made me aware why Lou might think she was referring to him. I still don't know if she was because I can only go with what I read, but (and I'll put the link in again) I *did* find a place where he *did* say she defamed him.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/252564.html
The ironic thing is that the sentence in the thread above probably wouldn't have been noticed if nothing were said to point it out. I know *I* had just skimmed over it.
Posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 12:53:16
In reply to Re: Asking directly -- V important » NikkiT2, posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 2:12:10
I just need to make a point: U.S. law applies to everyone (just as any law applies to anyone -- the question is whether you've violated it. It's probably hard to violate U.S. parking law from afar. Libel law's a whole 'nother story). The problem is, if you are outside of the U.S., it would be *very* difficult for someone in the U.S. to properly serve you with papers. And as long as you haven't been served, you have no obligation to answer a lawsuit.
There are also sanctions (financial) for "frivolous" lawsuits. Suing someone for posting that someone is a "nasty piece of work" would definitely be frivolous, since it is clearly categorizable as an opinion, and in the U.S., all opinions are protected by the first amendment from libel suits. I don't know the law of other states -- I'm only talking about U.S. law here.
I know that is not the point of this thread but I wanted to make it clear nonetheless. Why? I have no idea. Bored, I guess?
Posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 14:15:09
In reply to sorry to jump in here and be pedantic, posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 12:53:16
And one other (minor) detail. Wouldn't you also have to know who the person really is and name them in order to libel them? We have no idea who each other really are.
Posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 15:02:05
In reply to Re: sorry to jump in here and be pedantic » crushedout, posted by AuntieMel on August 5, 2005, at 14:15:09
Absolutely. So, for example, if Lou Pilder's real name is Lou Pilder, and I say something slanderous about him, then he could potentially sue me. However, if that's a pseudonym and his real name was Davy Jones, I don't think he'd have a shot in h*ll since I only slandered the fictional Lou Pilder.
The plaintiff would also need to know the actual name of the alleged libelor (?) to sue (and not just a first name). He couldn't file a complaint that said *Lou Pilder v. crushedout* (although I'd like to see him try that. hee hee).
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2005, at 4:23:09
In reply to Lou's responsetoaspects o this thread-liklysuspec?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 23:53:57
> Let us look at the poster's statement. The statement writes,[...Someone {here} has threatened to sue me for defamation...].
> I ask;
> A. Could there be someone here botherd by that statement?> I am not requesting that a determination be made as to if it is acceptable or not here to post[....someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
Sorry, Lou, but although you didn't request a determination, I do think I need to consider you in this thread to have objected again to posts by Nikki, and I'd already asked you to deal in some other way with posts by her. The last time you were blocked it was for 48 weeks, so I'm afraid this time it's for a year.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, 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 posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on August 6, 2005, at 18:36:56
In reply to Re: blocked for year » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2005, at 4:23:09
Even if we haven't always agreed, I've enjoyed getting to know you.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on August 6, 2005, at 18:59:06
In reply to Take care of yourself, Lou, posted by gardenergirl on August 6, 2005, at 18:36:56
Posted by henrietta on August 6, 2005, at 19:48:01
In reply to Yes, Lou, peace and be well (nm), posted by 10derHeart on August 6, 2005, at 18:59:06
I'm, sorry, Lou. I echo GG and Tender Heart. Be well.
Henrietta
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2005, at 20:36:34
In reply to Re: blocked for year » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2005, at 4:23:09
I'll see you in a year, and you know where to find me if you want to say "Howdy" before then.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 6, 2005, at 20:56:14
In reply to Be well, Lou., posted by Dinah on August 6, 2005, at 20:36:34
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2005, at 21:48:36
In reply to Hey!! {hi there} ;-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on August 6, 2005, at 20:56:14
Posted by AuntieMel on August 7, 2005, at 23:53:25
In reply to Be well, Lou., posted by Dinah on August 6, 2005, at 20:36:34
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2005, at 3:42:35
In reply to Be well, Lou., posted by Dinah on August 6, 2005, at 20:36:34
This is the end of the 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.