Get a load of this...

[mamamax]

False Accuation???? I think not.

I also must ask you - do you have children?? particularly daughters?? I do.

Not that it takes a parent to find that video disturbing, but I am curious.

Funny how you post a link to a video that many, many members found offensive - and NOW you are calling for the thread to be locked because folks are bashing it???

And I'm with Jess - I owe that wacko (who appears to be biting one girl's leg - and calls the brace a 'lover') no apology. You can call it what you want, but I call it creepy, very creepy.

I have a beautiful daughter, college educated. In her late 20's now. See sees the False accusation here -

A respected man in his field is being completely trashed here - the thread should be locked.

Maybe if I start talking about religion here - then the right thing will be done.

[jrnyc]

hie VIDEOS are being trashed for what they are..garbage...not him..

you dont get it!!!!!

jess

[debbei]

hie VIDEOS are being trashed for what they are..garbage...not him..

you dont get it!!!!!

jess

I totally agree. I know nothing of the man other than those disturbing videos.

Mamamax, you have been making trouble since day 1. You're the one who brought these youtube videos here in the first place--what did you expect us to do? Praise the man's video content? He's a creep. Plain and simple.

[LindaRacine]

You're the one who brought these youtube videos here in the first place.

Actually, I think it was something else... but everything else you say is right on.

If Mamamax were to stop posting about it, the thread would die a natural death instead of continually making it's way to the top of the list.

[mamamax]

Actually, I think it was something else... but everything else you say is right on.

If Mamamax were to stop posting about it, the thread would die a natural death instead of continually making it's way to the top of the list.

Now that is funny. Good joke. Actually *if* we had a moderator in this forum, who did not encourage defamation of character of a well respected medical doctor ... I probably would not have much to say :-)

I suggest you read up on Internet defamation. Let me assist:

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

I see LOTS of reckless disregard ...

[jrnyc]

"defamation of character"?? now you are the only one who has a vocabulary? we KNOW what it means, and that is why we know that is NOT what is going on here! and there has been nothing "false" written...his videos have done all the damage anyone else could ever do to the esteem, or lack of it, in which he is now held! and if you continued to look at definitions, you would see much greater explanations, including that opinions are not facts, and are not defamatory unless false statements are being made...you could easily investigate further and see that no defamation has taken place on these threads!
we live in America, not Nazi Germany...we are free to criticize the BEHAVIOR of people...i did not see one comment about the charming doctor himself...
that is NOT defamation...so why dont you, mamamax, do a little more searching on the internet sites that explain it much more clearly!

we have a moderator...a good one...a fair one...one who believes is freedom of speech!! something you apparently dont appreciate!

so go start your own forum...you're such a critic...i'm just sure you could do it better


Linda...thanks for all you do..i, for one, appreciate it! and i appreciate free speech...on this forum, in this country...and you are SO right! if mamamax would let this thread die, it would be forgotten! but she seems to feel compelled to keep it going...

jess

[mamamax]

Literacy is woefully lacking.

[jrnyc]

really...why dont you give us an example of your "literacy"

do you want my credentials...3 graduate degrees...exactly what in my "literacy skills" do you find lacking?

snobbery is not dead...so sorry we peasants arent as ...what...smart...as you are...brilliant? LITERATE??

exchanging insults...you must LOVE it! you are the only person on this thread who started any of the insults to individuals on the thread...because we don't worship your creepy doctor friend!


jess

[mamamax]

really...why dont you give us an example of your "literacy"

do you want my credentials...3 graduate degrees...exactly what in my "literary skills" do you find lacking?

snobbery is not dead...so sorry we peasants arent as ...what...smart...as you are...brilliant? LITERATE??

exchanging insults...you must LOVE it! you are the only person on this thread who started any of the insults to individuals on the thread...because we don't worship your creepy doctor friend!


jess

Dear God ... this is getting too hilarious. And a degree, bty, is only as good as the manner in which one uses it. Hope that is not too deep. And my "doctor friend" is hardly creepy - but then none in this thread -have taken the time to investigate his work. Yet you know everything - amazing!

Good night ladies - God bless.

I have mentioned God twice now ... can we lock this thread?

[mariaf]

I totally agree. I know nothing of the man other than those disturbing videos.

Mamamax, you have been making trouble since day 1. You're the one who brought these youtube videos here in the first place--what did you expect us to do? Praise the man's video content? He's a creep. Plain and simple.

Well said, Debbei.

Some people just love to stir the pot. I cannot imagine that any sensible person would think that video would not draw criticism.

Another thing that occured to me - what would most dads of teenage girls think of this video?? I think if they saw THEIR daughter in such a video, the good Dr. Weiss would have to start wearing a disguise.

But I'm sure those dads would be scolded for making false accusations or some other such nonsense

[hdugger]

A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

A few comments, from someone who's worked in the online community field for awhile and had to field almost constant threats of defamation charges.

Libel has to do with an accusation of behavior and not an impression. So, so-and-so is an idiot is not libel, but so-and-so is such an idiot that they put their cat in the microwave might be.

Libel also has to be a known falsehood. So, if you claim that they put the cat in the microwave, but you know they didn't, that's libel. If you really believe it, it's not. Again, this part doesn't really apply because all of the comments were about personal impressions and not about charges of behavior.

However, *none* of this matters when you're dealing with people in other countries, and it may not even matter in forums which are read worldwide. We were constantly having to take things down because a Canadian member, relying on Canadian law, found something to be libelous which we in the US did not.

So, it's not libelous as I understand American law, it's just unpleasant. Once you reach beyond American borders, though - beats me.

[hdugger]

Here's a little snippet from the NY Times in 1900 laying out the vagaries of German libel law:

"The German law of libel is a curiosity. An editor recently said in his paper that a certain gentleman "was an unmannerly boor," in consequence of which a libel action was brought against the paper. The evidence given seemed to show that the only fault with the expression was that it was not strong enough. The case was taken from court to court in the usual way, until it reached the highest tribunal: the final decision was that the editor would have been perfectly justified if he had said that the plantiff "had acted like an unmnnerly boor"; but since he had said that the plantiff actually "was an unmannerly boor." he had committed libel. In Germany it is libelous to call a man a pig or an ass; but if you combine the two and call a man a pig-ass, then there is no libel, because such an animal does not exist. The favorite combination among Germans is, we believe, pig-dog--schweinehund."

[jrnyc]

"Hope that is not too deep"..."a degree, by the way, is only as good as the way it is used", or some such b.s. like that...my, my, mamamax, is your degree in law...is that why you know so much about "defamation"? or is your degree in medicine, and that is why you know so much about what works and doesnt work for scoliosis...or is your degree in literacy? and that is why you just know it when you see it? or is your degree in research...and that is why you found such relevant pieces on "defamation" ..
or is your degree in how to run a forum, and that is why you know how to do it so much better than our moderator?

wow, you've got a lot of degrees, and surely, surely use them all well!!

well, since obviously you are just SO DEEP, we poor peasants just couldnt possibly understand your deep, philosophical, medical, legal, literate, research, or forum skills!! poor us...so ignorant, so lacking in your superior knowledge of all things...which translates to no things!

i am done with this garbage you cant stop spouting...you just cant let it go...

you have mentioned your higher power twice..so that gets you brownie points...??
many have said that if you would just let it go, the thread would die...maybe you can finally let it go!
the thread could "lock" if you could stop...or try to control yourself

good bye to this nonsense

jess

[debbei]

Another thing that occured to me - what would most dads of teenage girls think of this video?? I think if they saw THEIR daughter in such a video, the good Dr. Weiss would have to start wearing a disguise.

I don't know about most dads, but I can tell you my husband would flip his lid. He's very protective of our daughter....well so am I.

[debbei]

Now that is funny. Good joke. Actually *if* we had a moderator in this forum, who did not encourage defamation of character of a well respected medical doctor ... I probably would not have much to say :-)

I suggest you read up on Internet defamation. Let me assist:

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

I see LOTS of reckless disregard ...

I know you won't, but I wish you'd just give it up. You must be really bored.

Ok that's it, I'm done with this thread because I have better things to do with my time.