James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

For everything that is related to Lyme and/or Lymeland, but doesn't fit in the other forums. Speak your mind, connect, ask help, etc.
Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Fin24 » Mon 15 Feb 2010 0:49

And remember, we are only talking about false statements, here).
exactly

so pray tell what is it that you find to be "false"?? I have taken great care to cite sources for all statements, and they are from the website by the topic of conversation,himself.

as far as this, curious question:
The only person currently posting there is a member of your group, last I heard..
what is the group to which you refer?? and who is this person?? since you mention them as a possible reason to join them in discussion.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Spanky » Mon 15 Feb 2010 16:05

Spanky: "And remember, we are only talking about false statements, here".
Fin: exactly

so pray tell what is it that you find to be "false"?? I have taken great care to cite sources for all statements, and they are from the website by the topic of conversation,himself.
I didn't say ANY statements were false or NOT. Not the point. (That was a general point about defamation taken out-of-context).

The point is that you might want to think twice before posting material that EXPOSES the board and the Administrator to potential liability.

Especially if it is unecessary.

Not talking about the merits of any litigation...I am talking about avoiding a situation where someone might feel compelled to file against the board or the administrator because of something that YOU said. if you bothered to read what I posted in regard to the Communications Decency Act, you should appreciate that some think that it does not, under all circumstances, supply complete insulation from liability and it is possible, that a board like this one could be found to be a secondary "publisher".

Here, again...(third time, now, nice big red letters for you):

And posters should NOT put the moderators of various boards in the unenviable position of trying to decide what is a problematic statement and what is not.


Don't you think we have all gotten the your message about Dr. S in Florida, now? But your most recent on this subject seems to imply that he overcharges and that the State of Florida should yank his license.

Don't you think that if you were D. S you would find that objectionable?

And do you think that your compulsion to post this stuff endlessly warrants a defamation action against this board? Not fun to get sued and have to hire an attorney...
Fin: as far as this, curious question:
The only person currently posting there is a member of your group, last I heard...

what is the group to which you refer?? and who is this person?? since you mention them as a possible reason to join them in discussion.
Huh?

What I said was that sci.med.diseaseslyme is UNMODERATED. So, in theory, you see, IF you MUST post this stuff endlessly ad nauseum about Schaller...why don't you do it there? That way, you aren't subjecting THIS board to possible claims.

The "group" I am referring to is your group...your site, which was public for awhile, but now (I guess by popular demand) closed to view. So, don't you think that it is slightly hypocritical, not to mention selfish, to post this material on others' boards...when you don't allow that yourself? Your group is not exposed to these claims...

The person I am referring to as being the only one posting at sci.med is Kathleen M. Dickson, who posts there under the name "Mort Zuckerman".

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med. ... yme/topics

And, as I said, last I heard, she was a member of your group. I wasn't suggesting that this was a reason to "join them in discussion". What I meant was that there is very little activity or censorship there. You can post whatever you want. And it is picked up by the search engines, as I understand it.

(What few others appear there are products of her cross-posting her stuff to other non-related forums).
Last edited by Spanky on Mon 15 Feb 2010 17:00, edited 1 time in total.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed 25 Jul 2007 21:06

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by admin » Mon 15 Feb 2010 16:25

Spanky wrote:And posters should NOT put the moderators of various boards in the unenviable position of trying to decide what is a problematic statement and what is not.
I will adopt this as a new forum rule the next time I update the forum rules, because being put in the position to figure out whether statements are false or not, and potentially defamatory, is not so comfortable and it costs a lot of time and energy as well. On top of this, it is often hard if not impossible to find out for sure whether a statement is false or not.

Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Fin24 » Mon 15 Feb 2010 21:59

would this include listing urls directly attributable to person of topic of conversation?? as in "their own words"?? Since when is quoting a person's own words whether they are printed off a website or other venue, liable to defamation? and since when would making an opinion about those words be defamation?

keep in mind that by necessity,with your new rule, these sorts of "opinion" and conjecture,comments will then be prohibited:
I find the following remarks quite dubious: "LymeNet does not tolerate defaming anyone, especially LLMDs.
Martian » Thu 4 Feb 2010 4:11
this poster is doubting the veracity of the statement, in effect implying what?? hypocrisy?? disingenuity?

pure conjecture about the activities of LN:
I guess the post is 'dangerous' in that it might make people wonder about all the endless quack marketing going on and how desperate patients are being manipulated. And who is doing it..
rlstanley » Mon 1 Feb 2010 17:28
doesnt this boldly hint at less than ethical activities on LN??

or even these links, after all we dont even know who "relative Risk" is, so how do we know what he posts isnt defamatory or false? doesnt have some hidden agenda? how do we know where HE gets his basis of "fact"?
rlstanley » Thu 4 Feb 2010 23:55

Here are some comments from http://relative-risk.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ocess.html
--------------------------------------------------

IMO once we start trying to bar this sort of thing because its hard to decide which links or statements are "okay" we fall into the LN trap of full censorship or inability to post opinions.

Admin has every right to set rules of limitations, however, I respectfully ask admin--do you really want that?
---------------------------------------------------
The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialogue that is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry.[
[8] "out-law.com". August 8, 2008.

So that moderators or admins of boards with many posters, dont have to feel that they are "in the unenviable position of trying to decide what is a problematic statement and what is not." Which I absolutely agree would be unfair.

Per legal advice Ive sought,even if a statement is derogatory, there are some circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law ( U.S. law that is)
i.e not everything is "defamatory" or actionable

I was also advised that statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable
I was again told that circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest are a "privelege" and safe from defamation accusation-; an example would be public meetings

my atty has the opinion that a health forum board such as thi, Lymegate, and LN et al can easily be argued that these act as public meetings and the information or opinions offered may be construed as "important" to know. Like when warning about a scam or unethical Doctor.

of course all attorneys like doctors have their own and often differing opinion and interpretations

If I misunderstood anything my legal advisor imparted to me, Id be happy to stand corrected.

My own opinion is that I think perhaps that Spanky is using the threat of liability to manipulate admin to enforce rules that he welcomes but that will curtail some posters including myself from expressing opinions here. Then again, other posters as Ive shown above, would also be curtailed hence collateral damage all to satisfy what I feel is Spanky's desire for vengeance. control.

Im not a gambling gal,but I bet the timing and placement of Spanky's comments are not at all accidental, and Im also betting to now see an onslaught from him of how and why my legal advice is incorrect and how I am the reason for placing this site under liability while others with similar postings are not.( oh yes, me with my "group" --the complement of which Spanky still hasnt yet defined)

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Martian » Mon 15 Feb 2010 22:21

Fin24,

Why has the blog and site of you and cave76 been removed/made unavailable to the public?

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Spanky » Tue 16 Feb 2010 0:13

Fin24:

per legal advice Ive sought,even if a statement is derogatory, there are some circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law ( U.S. law that is)
i.e not everything is "defamatory" or actionable
That's correct.

For instance, mere name-calling is NOT defamatory.

There are also fair-comment defenses. But you see, the Admin cannot be responsible for making judgement calls on whether to allow material that could result in possible actions being filed...or be forced to become an expert on American defamation law...or its international implications on the internet.

But...AGAIN...the point here is to avoid a situation where a possible claim could be lodged and you cannot expect that the Admin should have to wade through the internet trying to figure out whether your accusations are true, or not.

And it is not difficult, AT ALL to avoid these situations. You simply respond to what the person says...and NOT the person.

When in doubt...don't post it. Or use e-mail. Or if you absolutely must...just cannot stop yourself...then, post it on sci.med.diseases.lyme.

And it costs $$$ to hire lawyers and there is a damned good reason to be cautious about some of the type of comments you are now making.

And when weighed against the overall importance of those comments...in the big picture...the point is, no post is worth risking the survival of the board and it is unfair to other posters to insist that you have the right to just attack others and place the board in potential jeopardy.

I am grateful to the Admin for creating a place like this that allows differing viewpoints, has established high standards and upholds them...and consider it a privilege to post here.

I think that the Admin has allowed you and others a great deal of latitude on this subject, previously. The threads are still up. Why push it? Aren't we talking about what is, essentially, now, piling on...a late hit out-of-bounds?

of course all attorneys like doctors have their own and often differing opinion and interpretations
Well, yes...and you cannot place the Admin in the position of deciding these things.

And what your lawyer is saying is true, so far as it goes, when these matters are litigated...but the point is to avoid that, you see?

We don't want to say things here that could cause LNE to be sued, do we?

If YOU want to litigate this...all the power in the world to you, go for it. But why bring others along with you?

If I misunderstood anything my legal advisor imparted to me, Id be happy to stand corrected.
We are NOT talking about how these matters would be resolved if they were addressed in COURT. Do you understand? We are talking about making sure we don't have to deal with that. So that we don't have to find out what would happen in Court.
Im not a gambling gal,but I bet the timing and placement of Spanky's comments are not at all accidental,
Well, it is not entirely "accidental"...as I have heard some rumblings and rumors and am smart enough (I think) to understand why Lymenet posted that warning about comments directed at Schaller. I can read between the lines there and figure out what probably happened over there.

Lawyers, you see, are basically all trained to think alike, more or less...
and Im also betting to now see an onslaught from him of how and why my legal advice is incorrect and how I am the reason for placing this site under liability while others with similar postings are not.( oh yes, me with my "group" --the complement of which Spanky still hasnt yet defined
No, your advice is more or less correct, insofar as you have stated it. It's your interpretation of that advice that is the problem, here...and to borrow another football analogy...a famous running back once said that the name of the game wasn't hitting...it is "hitting avoiding".

(And the group that I am referring to, as being yours is located here):

http://lymegate.ning.com/main/authoriza ... 3Dactivity

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Spanky » Wed 17 Feb 2010 5:23

"Fin24"

keep in mind that by necessity,with your new rule, these sorts of "opinion" and conjecture,comments will then be prohibited:

this poster is doubting the veracity of the statement, in effect implying what?? hypocrisy?? disingenuity?

IMO once we start trying to bar this sort of thing because its hard to decide which links or statements are "okay" we fall into the LN trap of full censorship or inability to post opinions.

Admin has every right to set rules of limitations, however, I respectfully ask admin--do you really want that?
And just to be clear...NO...the above citations and examples are NOT applicable...and this is just an indication of why there is concern, here. It doesn't appear that someone has a very clear grasp of the basic concepts.

What we are talking about are statements, FALSE statements, about other people. In this case, statements that may be false (or not) and may cause damage to, or injure professional reputation.

(So, in other words, unless you happen to be a part of some sort of bizarre online vigilante posse that spends its time roaming the internet 24/7 trying to lynch people that they don't like from the nearest low-hanging branch...you probably don't need to worry about any of this).

minitails2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat 3 Nov 2007 10:27

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by minitails2 » Thu 18 Feb 2010 7:04

Just my observation, my opinion, that for some reason Spanky always finds something to argue about when it comes to Fin's posts.

The information given in this thread by Fin, is not conjecture, and as she pointed out, she has attributed all of her comments. In addition, any remainder is, in fact, opinion, legally allowed via the First Amendment.

I am also somewhat puzzled as to why Spanky needs to speak for Admin, certainly Admin is capable of that himself.

Just curious....

And Spanky, I don't want to argue about my observations and knowledge of the actual topic at hand, Schaller.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by Spanky » Thu 18 Feb 2010 17:11

"minitails2":
The information given in this thread by Fin, is not conjecture, and as she pointed out, she has attributed all of her comments. In addition, any remainder is, in fact, opinion, legally allowed via the First Amendment.
Is that so? That your legal opinion? And do you think that you are qualified to render such an opinion? Why?

Well, maybe, maybe not. But in case you missed it the first four or five times, I would suggest that the point here is NOT to argue about whether this or that comment is defamatory or not...but to avoid the question when it is probably completely unecessary.

The point here is whether continued accusations and innuendo directed at Schaller serve any purpose...when weighed against the possibility of exposing this board to claims for defamation.

The First Amendment isn't an absolute. There are exceptions. Libel, for instance. And this forum is international in scope, isn't it? Are you saying that American law applies? Why?

And there are other venues for this sort of thing. This is not directed at substance...but simply saying, asking...why don't you do this somewhere else? (Are you acquainted with the expression "take it outside")?
I am also somewhat puzzled as to why Spanky needs to speak for Admin, certainly Admin is capable of that himself.
I don't "speak for the Admin"...if you noticed.

And just so you know...NOT that it is ANY of YOUR business...I did apologize to the Admin off-board if it appeared that my comments were "backseat moderating". But the Admin is not an American lawyer. I am. I thought I could share some of my experience to help avoid a possible problem.

The Admin is certainly capable of telling me to butt out if the Admin disagrees.
And Spanky, I don't want to argue about my observations and knowledge of the actual topic at hand, Schaller
Swell, because I really don't give a damn about any of that and have paid very little attention to it. I barely know who the guy is. But when you are online, on a public message board, soliciting others to join some attempt to have someone's license revoked...I would suggest that you are not using your head too damn much, or apparently, understanding the potential impact of your actions...or caring, either.

Other people are posting here and some other's vendetta, vindictive obsession to "get" someone else...probably shouldn't place other people's privileges in jeopardy.

I think some of you girls need to find a nice, quiet hobby for yourselves, though...you know, stamp collecting, instead of scalp-collecting...

minitails2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat 3 Nov 2007 10:27

Re: James L. Schaller, MD, MAR, PA, DABPN, DABFM, CMI, CMR, PA

Post by minitails2 » Fri 19 Feb 2010 9:47

Spanky
"instead of scalp-collecting..."

I prefer it when my hobbies scream.

Post Reply