![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:03:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-ruloutLu? » Lou Pilder, posted by Nikkit2 on August 4, 2005, at 9:02:55
Email me if I can help. I just saw this thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:05:24
In reply to Lou's response to AM's post-doyurembr?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 16:59:19
> Friends,
> It is written here,[....Nikki never said it was you...]. Nikki has written, [...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
> Now my concern is to the identification of who the poster is that NikkiT2 is referring to that she wrote that someone here threatened to sue her for defamation.
> Later in that thread, NikkiT2 writes something that I can not understand. She writes, [...Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here?...].
> This is difficult for me to understand without having a URL to see. If NikkiT2 is saying that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation made the threat outside of what can be seen by me on this forum, then I asked if that could make a difference.
> Then NikkiT2 makes it clear that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation [...was *from* someone here...].
> Now if the threat to sue for defamation was made on another forum, could ther be a chance that the URL could be discovered?
> If so, then the poster of such could be identified and the content of the post seen.
> I am requesting that if you are going to either respond to this aspect, or if you are going to modify what you may have already posted, to read the folloowing link and take what is written in consideration if you are going to respond here.
> The poster writes,[...he,(Lou), threatened me with legal action...].
> I am not requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination because the post has already been in the past done, and I would like to go forward here.
> but I am requesting that anyone post the URL where I wrote that I threatened Nikki with legal action, for I do not remember writing that.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/bebble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
The corrected link is:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 17:14:16
In reply to Lou's response AM' post-doyurembr?corected link, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:05:24
Lou, I think I posted this elsewhere, or maybe I just thought it really loud. But what prevents you from just asking Nikki directly if she is talking about you?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:24:41
In reply to Lou's response AM' post-doyurembr?corected link, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:05:24
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[....Nikki never said it was you...]. Nikki has written, [...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
> > Now my concern is to the identification of who the poster is that NikkiT2 is referring to that she wrote that someone here threatened to sue her for defamation.
> > Later in that thread, NikkiT2 writes something that I can not understand. She writes, [...Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here?...].
> > This is difficult for me to understand without having a URL to see. If NikkiT2 is saying that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation made the threat outside of what can be seen by me on this forum, then I asked if that could make a difference.
> > Then NikkiT2 makes it clear that the poster that made the threat to sue for defamation [...was *from* someone here...].
> > Now if the threat to sue for defamation was made on another forum, could ther be a chance that the URL could be discovered?
> > If so, then the poster of such could be identified and the content of the post seen.
> > I am requesting that if you are going to either respond to this aspect, or if you are going to modify what you may have already posted, to read the folloowing link and take what is written in consideration if you are going to respond here.
> > The poster writes,[...he,(Lou), threatened me with legal action...].
> > I am not requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination because the post has already been in the past done, and I would like to go forward here.
> > but I am requesting that anyone post the URL where I wrote that I threatened Nikki with legal action, for I do not remember writing that.
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/bebble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.html
> The corrected link is:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407422.htmlFriends,
We now have seen that the staement, [...Nikki never said it was you (Lou)...]could have the potential , IMO, for some to reconsider what they ahave already written in regards to this thread and the aspect of NikkiT2's post,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
Now I would like the forum to know that I do not believe that I have ever emailed Nikki with a threat to sue for defamation, or corrosponded with her by letter, fax, phone or posted about her in any way on another forum. This causes me to ask myself that if I never did any of those things mentioned, then what else could have been the deliverance of what she says that,[...he (Lou) threatened me with legal action...]other than a post here? And if that is so, then I am requesting for anyone to post the URL for that post.
This leaves me with requesting for those that are considering responding to this discussion to consider my feelings about what is written here.
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:37:54
In reply to asking a direct question » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 17:14:16
gg,
You have asked me in some way,[... what prevents me from asking Nikki if she is referring to me...].
That I will answer when I have the time, for my answer is very complex.
But could I ask you what your opinion is as to why NikkiT2 has not identified the poster that she writes,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...]?
Also, could you ask NikkiT2 to identify the poster that wrote that NikkiT2 is referring to in,[...someone here thretened to sue me for defamation...]?
Lou
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 17:50:06
In reply to Lou's reply to gg-askfridentifcton? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:37:54
> gg,
> You have asked me in some way,[... what prevents me from asking Nikki if she is referring to me...].
> That I will answer when I have the time, for my answer is very complex.OK, why not take the time to answer it now? You're asking for a lot from a lot of other people, Lou, and so I would very much hope that you'd be willing to offer something in return. Isn't that fair? How about you take the time to answer that question now, and then -- fair play -- someone can answer your next question?
> But could I ask you what your opinion is as to why NikkiT2 has not identified the poster that she writes,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...]?
Perhaps it's because by asking in a general way, she does not create a situation in which someone feels accused or put down, thus stays within the civility guidelines for this site. Obviously, this isn't 100%, since you seem to feel that the post in question was referring to you. In law, though, there is the "Reasonable Person" test, where you basically ask what a hypothetical Reasonable Person would believe. In this case, I think Nikki has passed the Reasonable Person test.
If you think that she's referring to you, you can ask her directly, rather than continuing to behave as if her post definitely does refer to you. That would help keep Nikki from feeling accused and put down, which she has stated she does feel. Dr Bob has made a ruling about this in the past, Lou, and you're ignoring it now. What are we to interpret from this behavior?
And isn't it pretty close to the line regarding civility -- the part about not posting things that make others feel accused or put down?
> Also, could you ask NikkiT2 to identify the poster that wrote that NikkiT2 is referring to in,[...someone here thretened to sue me for defamation...]?
> LouThat's something which, in order to stay within the guidelines of this site as I understand them, she cannot do in a post. Perhaps if you were to ask her privately? Or ask Dr Bob privately?
Posted by gardenergirl on August 4, 2005, at 17:57:08
In reply to Lou's reply to gg-askfridentifcton? » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 17:37:54
> gg,
> You have asked me in some way,[... what prevents me from asking Nikki if she is referring to me...].
> That I will answer when I have the time, for my answer is very complex.I can wait, then.
> But could I ask you what your opinion is as to why NikkiT2 has not identified the poster that she writes,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...]?
My guess is she is being discreet.
> Also, could you ask NikkiT2 to identify the poster that wrote that NikkiT2 is referring to in,[...someone here thretened to sue me for defamation...]?
I could ask Nikki, but I have no personal need to. Are you asking me to ask her for you? I can't help but imagine hearing Nikki in my head saying, "Um, guys? I'm right here! I can read what you are saying."
gg
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 18:24:01
In reply to Lou's response to AM's post-altignr?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 12:45:38
> Friends,
> It is written here that Dr. Hsiung has offered me the alternative to requesting a determination from those that I have "3" to ignore the posts. But if I do ignore them , and Dr. Hsiung does not reply to my emails concerning those type of posts to him;
> I ask:
> A.If I was to ignore a post that IMO ,let's say, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, could there not be the potential for others to post like posts and escalate matters if there is no moderator interceding?
> B. If I was to ignore those type of posts, could one have the potential to think that there is the potential to think that I also endorse what is posted?
> C. Is it supportive for the moderaor to make a rule that restrains a member of a mental health community from requesting from the moderator to write a determination as to what a poster has posted is acceptable to write here or not?
> D. Could it be , in your opinion, reasonable to allow one to request after "3" if the moderator is not active on the board, lets say, for 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?
> LouHey, Lou, here's an idea:
If you believe that it is up to you to enforce the rules of this site, and protect us all from anything that might inadvertantly bring to mind anything regarding anything related to Judaism, how about offering to become a Deputy here? Why not ask Dr Bob to include you in the Deputy training, see if he believes that you would be a potential Deputy? That might make for better use of your time, don't you think?
By the way, Lou -- it really wouldn't be a Mitzvah to ADDRESS other posters directly, ASK us what we mean, and RESPECT requests not to post to or about us.
It would be plain, old-fashioned good manners, though.
Posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 20:23:44
In reply to Lou's response to AM's post-altignr?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 12:45:38
Lou, in my post above, titled Modest Proposal, I allowed my emotional reaction to this thread to color what I wrote. I am sorry for the last part of that post, and want you to know that I do not want to hurt your feelings -- I just didn't control myself adequately.
I hope that you will accept my apology.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 21:41:09
In reply to C'mon » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 4, 2005, at 17:50:06
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 am requesting that if you are considering o reply to this aspect of this thread that you ask yourself the folllowing:
A. Is there something that the poster is {asking} in the statement,[...someone here threatened...]? If so, could you write what in your opinion it is that the poster is {asking}?
B. Is the statement,[...someone here threatened to sue me...]spacific to at least one poster that is a member of this community?
C. Does the statement rule out anyone as to the identity of the person that threatened the other poster with a suit?
D. If no one here is ruled out as the possible person that made the threat to sue, could ther be the potential that the person could be, at least, one of many members here.
E. Could some others here have some memory problems that could cause them to think that maybe they are the person in question that threatened the suit because they can not remember evrything that they wrrote? If so, could those members here have the potential to feel accused and/or put down?
F. Could it be possible that there is not a member here that threatened a suit for defamation to the poster?. If so, could there be the potential for some here to feel accused falsly?
Lou
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.
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.