![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:42:20
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:35:06
stjames,
The issue in our discussion is adulterty. The appearance of a sexually transmitted disease in the past meant to society, but not me, that one was an adulterer. I pointed this out, that esxually transmitted dieass could be gotten wirthout commiting adultery and I disagree with the hisorical definition of defamation in regards to this, same with AIDS.
Now same-sex marriages are now accepted in the US via a recent supreme court rulling. So a same sex partner couls also be defamed as an adulterer here.
I have absolutly no qualms or predudices at all with same-sex marriages. They also belive in fidelity in their matrriage and take the same vows as heterosexual marriages. plese do not accuse me in any way of defaming same sex partners. My beliefe has been expressed about this in The Road.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 20:18:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:42:20
stjames,
one of the most tragic case is of that great nurse,(I can't remember her name that books are written about) died of syphilis. She obtained the patogen via blood from a paitiant in the hospital that she made famous over 100 years ago.
One of the points that I am making here in this discussion about fefamation, is some of these things. Society considers adultery a great shame, but I say that society could also be the shame when they stigmatize people for such. "The Scarlet Letter" was put on Hester by others, not me.
Lou
Posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:42:13
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:35:06
> stjames,
> The idea of defamation in the history of the worls involved adultery. The masterpiece of Nathanal Hawthorn, 'The Scarlet Letter", shows some of this. Adultery then was considered a horrible crime. So to accused falsly of such damaged the reputation of the one accused falsely.
> The defamation laws were formed to punish that type of defamation. So horrible was adultery, that it was considered the great shame.
> The ancient Isrealites stoned to death adulterers, so a false accusation of such carried a huge punishment later in history. Adulterers are still beheaded in some Islamic countries.
> LouJust thought I'd point out, as an aside, it was usually women that were punished more severely (or punished at all) for adultery, based (often) on the word of the husband. The same goes for the millions of women who died (before cures were available) from venereal diseases because "men were just being men" and that was just how it was.
Certainly, men died, too, but the wives were no longer acceptable as part of polite society, often having done nothing more than their 'duties' to their husbands.
While I could write so very, very much more on this topic (women being stoned to death because they were in public without an appropriate male escort), I will restrain myself.
Thus, as far as defamation is concerned, it was more likely to fall on the female (who mattered less anyway) than the male.
One minor point, was Hester Prynne defamed, or was she punished for breaking a law? Her pregnancy was evidence she could not conceal as far as her "crime" was concerned, so she really did have sex (with Dimmesdale who was too chicken to take his medicine), and received a punishment appropriate for that day and time (tho' Dimmesdale could have lessened her suffering significantly had he been an honest man). So, is being found guilty of any crime the same as defamation?
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 7:40:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL, posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:42:13
Shar,
It is my position here that I do not condone the punishment of adultery. Nor do I agree with the ancient codes for such.
In Hawthorn's classic, Dimsdale was the personification of those times amd ther was and still is an inequity in the treatment of women vs the treatment of men throught the world in relation to this topic. My position is, let he that has not sinned cast the first stone.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 8:03:52
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:47:59
When i called you a nasty peice of work, you had just attcked me in a very nasty way, even though you denied that changing my name in such an obvious way was an attack. It had NOTHING what so ever to with Jews or anything like that.. the fact that you think its was an attack on jews in pretty offensive in my eyes. You know full well that I have no prejudices against ANY religion.
And when I mentioned your spelling, it was after you had correted MY spelling - which had actually been a typo which I do alot of becaus eof nerve problems in my arm that causes hand to eye co-ordination problems.But when you take thinsg totally and utterly out of context they can sound mean. Maybe I shoudl find some of your statements and post just a few of the words - I;m sure then other people would find them offensive. Like this thread for example - some of your words have been taken out of context and used against you. Not nice is it??
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:26:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 8:03:52
NikkiT2,
First, thank you for pointing out that others in this thread have taken what I have written out of context in an attempt to defame me.
But your statement,"Lou, you are a nasty piece of work", was not anything out of context for you wrote that about me. Your attempt to ligitimise your defamation toward me by saying that you are allowed to do so here is blatently against the rules here for the rule has been always to not hurt others even if you think your's were hurt.
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. If we were allowed to defame others here on your basis, then anyone could manufacture their own reason to commit defamation and the moderator's code has a provision to not allow that. But he did allow it, and that has caused you, perhaps to feel that you had a ligitimasy to commit defamation. I am not a nasty peice of work. I am made by my God in His image and if you say that I am a nasty piece of work, then you are also saying that my God is the same.
You may have a position of favor here to be allowed to commit defamation toward me here and not be stopped from posting, even after you were told to be civil preceding this post in question in another post that you defamed me in. But it is this allowing of such here that I am trying to stop. For when the moderator does not enforce his own rules equally, then we have a community run by the whims and predudices of such and that is what I am trying to change because I feel that it is an unsound mental health practice to allow descrimination and/or favoritism, for descrimination is uncivil.
Lou
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
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.