IIDB has been blocked by my hospital...

[Dr Rick]

...but I can still access Rapture Ready whenever I want.

The IT guy discovered that I was visiting IIDB from the hospital, which I do quite a bit during my downtime while waiting for a patient to arrive or the result of a test or intervention. He didn't like its content.

Here's my response to this little exercise in censorship and discrimination to the hopsital CEO:


Dear [CEO],

I am writing this letter to advise you of an unfair and illegal discriminatory act taken against me by [the hospital] and am asking you to intervene.

IT has blocked internet access to a site I frequent that promotes secularism known as the Secular Web while continuing to allow unfettered access by my colleagues to their personal sites. The block even affects my computer in my private office. While [the hospital] has the right to establish and enforce rules regarding internet access and use, it does not have the right to selectively enforce those rules in a way that discriminates based upon religious belief. Religious discrimination is not legal in a facility that accepts Medicare and Medicaid. Federal rules prohibit religious discrimination in facilities that accept government funding, and judicial precedent has made it clear that secular beliefs are also protected by those same rules.

It is unfair to act against me just because I hold a minority point of view; I am not forcing my views on anyone else, I am not forcing anyone to look at the site, and no one that works with me has complained about it. I tolerate frequent religious displays and comments from my co-workers and have never considered asking [the hospital] to censor what they may read and I am forced to see in the way [the hospital] has now censored what I may read.

There was no problem here until IT acted, and in my private conversation with Mr [IT guy] today it became obvious that he takes this matter personally. His claim that this is a “bandwidth” issue is clearly spurious; it is the content of the site that he objects to as evidenced by the large printout of it that he made. If it was a bandwidth issue that led Mr [IT guy] to act, he would not have felt compelled to review and criticize the content. He is entitled to his beliefs, but that does not excuse or warrant taking actions against me because of what I believe. If Mr [IT guy] or anyone else doesn’t like what I believe or post on the site, they don’t have to look at it.

I sincerely don’t want to make an issue of this, because I really like [the hospital], but IT has acted against me for no apparent reason other than prejudice. I have enjoyed my working relationship with the hospital and the administration, but this crude act of religious discrimination, if left in place, will disrupt it. I am not asking for special treatment; I am asking to be treated as the law requires and with the same respect that other physicians have. I do not deserve to be discriminated against because I hold a minority belief. As long as my colleagues continue to have access to their personal sites, I should too, and blocking my access based on religious discrimination is neither fair nor legal.

Please reverse this act of religious discrimination immediately.

Yours Truly;



Any advice and support would be appreciated

[The Other Michael]

Rick,

If it helps you can tell them that they run the risk of incurring severe mass Administrator displeasure if they don't clean up their act.

But since that probably doesn't cut any weight with them, I think your note takes a very reasonable and supportable stance. Will a call to your local ACLU be the next step if they don't see what a mistake they are making?

Please continue monitoring your blood pressure - I know mine would certainly be spiking if I were in your scrubs.

cheers,
Mihcael

[Belle]

I am so sorry you even had to write that in the first place. It was very well written and I am sure management will respect your concerns. Keep us posted on the outcome will you?

Hugs
Belle

[Viti]

Excellent letter Dr. Rick. There is the threat of legal action without being overt or confrontational and really, the IT guy cannot back up his claim of bandwidth issue (how much bandwidth could viewing this site possibly use??)

I am curious as to your coversation with the IT guy...what did he say that made it clear it was a content issue (I am being nosy, yes)?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Excellent letter Dr. Rick. There is the threat of legal action without being overt or confrontational and really, the IT guy cannot back up his claim of bandwidth issue (how much bandwidth could viewing this site possibly use??)

I am curious as to your coversation with the IT guy...what did he say that made it clear it was a content issue (I am being nosy, yes)?

Yeah--all the imagery from here is static and would quickly end up in cache. This is a very low bandwidth site. Going from dialup to cable didn't make a lot of difference here.

[pariah]

is it against the TOS to browse with a proxy?

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Here's my response to this little exercise in censorship and discrimination to the hopsital CEO:

* snip *

Any advice and support would be appreciated [/B]

Excellent letter. It's difficult to find the words to say how livid I would be in your position.

I hope that you are in a position to send your letter to the CEO.

[Farren]

Dr Rick,

I get livid just reading about your co-worker's behaviour. I hope this is resolved to your satisfaction.

In the meantime have the satisfaction of confounding his petty schemes. I've PM'd you the address of a good web anonymizer (which will reroute traffic from IIDB via another domain) and a good list of others.

I'm assuming that this will not constitute an infraction of any sort if the IT guy is just exercising fiat and no suitably authorised company instruction or policy has explicitly denied you the right to access the site.

Given my experience of IT staff responsibilities and privileges within a company, its probable he doesn't have the right to set content policy, which is why he's falling back on the traffic argument*.

Which means if you just keep finding alternative ways to access the site, he'd have to escalate the issue to the level of your superiors, without prejudice, and vindicate his argument about traffic. Obviously there's still an issue if they share his biases.

*Admittedly my experience is in South African companies but the template should be similar

[Never]

Well written letter Dr Rick. I would certainly be writing a similar one if I were in the same circumstances. There are 2 people in our hospital department who regularly brouse IIDB on their breaks and we have never heard a word. Hopefully it will stay that way. (Of course our IS people say you can't use an actual "word" as a password and I have done so with every 6 month password change. I can only guess that they are amused by my genre of passwords).

[missus_gumby]

Dr Rick, it may well be in your interest at this point to make a list of some of the web sites that you can visit. By this I mean sites like godhatesfags etc.

Nice letter BTW. :)

Martin

[southernhybrid]

Your letter gets the message across without sounding threatening. Hopefully you will get a positive response quickly. What will your next step be if they don't address your request to your satisfaction? Have you been blocked from using other atheist sites as well?

[jayh]

In my employment, I'm the guy who manages the blocks (that is NOT a job I like). Your system may be different, but our employees are told 'no non business related browsing', even weather is considered such (though it's not really enforced). Based on orders from the (multinational) corporate network, more and more things are blocked (which means I have to go back and unblock more and more things which shouldn't be).

Unfortunately in the current ridiculous legal climate, it makes sense to err on the side of caution, which means blocking more rather than allowing more.

[Primordial Groove]

With a Doctor's knowledge of human anatomy and with the means to 'alter' said anatomy, that IT guy has some big balls...

great letter Doc. Have you received a response yet?

[diana]

Originally posted by missus_gumby
Dr Rick, it may well be in your interest at this point to make a list of some of the web sites that you can visit. By this I mean sites like godhatesfags etc.

Nice letter BTW. :)

Martin Or better yet, play his game, Rick. Make an extensive list of the high bandwidth sites you can access from work without problems.

Or better yet, consult your coworkers and make a list of the sites they routinely visit, then take that list to a friend in the biz to determine relative bandwidth demands of each. Five'll get you ten you'll end up with a big ol' buttload that are far more bandwidth intensive than IIDB that are routinely used but he hasn't made a peep about. (Hell. I'd think CNN would be high bandwidth compared to IIDB.)

If you compile an impressive enough list (complete with bandwidth demands of each site), he'll be forced to block them all (which he isn't likely to), allow you back to your preferred site, or admit that he thinks all atheists are hellbound losers. Unless he's a complete idiot, he'll just drop it and let you access IIDB.

Only if he makes a "content" (only work-related sites on company computers) sort of argument would it really be helpful to make a list of all the non-work-related sites your coworkers enjoy.

Making a list of stuff you can access but don't normally or wouldn't is pretty pointless, actually. Sys admins are more likely to use a "deny by exception" policy that requires they catch someone using a site before they block it.

Great letter, btw. Very professional. Keep us posted. And do tell us what your self-appointed IT God says when he reads this thread.

d

[Jobar]

Rick, I agree that the bandwidth issue is pure bullshit. What you have is a (non-)religious discrimination issue. While at this point I agree that legal threats should not be made a matter of record, if the higher-ups you approach seem to be less than supportive of your rights, I would make the letters A, C, L, and U a prominent part of the conversation.

[Dr Rick]

Your support is greater than I can convey through the web. I've had some wonderful advice here, both on this thread and through PM, and I am incorporating it all. Thanks again.

I intend to fight this battle, if that is what it becomes, but the issue here is simultaneously straight-forward and complex.

Straight-forward because this is an obvious case of religious discrimination; complex because it involves my main hospital in a small town. Furthermore, my status with the hospital and the community has a potential impact.

Since I'm technically an indepentant contractor with the hospital, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting religious discrimination in employment, probably the strongest rule in the books addressing this sort of bullshit, doesn't apply. Federal regulations do prohibit religious discrimination in federally funded institutions, but they are more byzantine than employment law. Complicating the issue further is that my clinic, of which I am a partner and part-owner, is tied to the hospital as is our internet connection.

I am a physician leader in the community. I am a board-member of the Independent Physicians Association, a benign-sounding nomenclature for what is a critical entity that negotiates the insurance contracts for the community. I'm also on the board for the county medical society, the quality assurance commitee for the hospital, the institutional review board that oversees clinical trials in the hospital, and the pharmacy commitee that reviews and decides which antibiotics and painkillers we'll make available for our patients (they only get the best; I'll accept nothing less).

I love my community and the hospital that serves it. I have devoted countless hours to providing free medical care for indigents to fulfill the obligations I and the hospital both have. I'm part of a system that provides 24/7 coverage; come to our ER at noon on Thanksgiving with a bone stuck in your throat or at 3 am New Years Day internally bleeding, and I or one of my specialist collegues will be there, whether you're a celebrity (lots of them live here) or a street drunk (lots of them live here, too).


That's part of what pisses me off; I've done so much for the hospital, and I couldn't count the number of times I've been dragged out of bed to save an uninsured, non-paying patient in the ER or ICU.


The IT guy acted on his own, so what I do depends upon the response of the admin. The CEO and I are pals; I like the guy, he's honest, we've gone to leadership meetings together, he's acknowledged the millions of dollars I've brought to the hospital, and he's a decent man. There are definitely higher-dollar docs like the orthopods that bring the hospital business, but they'd be greatly impeded if I or one of my colleagues wasn't available to deal with the things that sometimes go wrong when a hip gets replaced and the recipient starts puking blood post-operatively or something.

The CEO didn't get my memo until late Friday, so his response is yet to come. I'd be surprised if he didn't act correctly. My options are confusing, and there's an upside and downside to all of them. I can go from discreet to nuclear. If the CEO doesn't act appropriately, I will resign my hospital committee positions and cancel my lectures to the staff later this month and next month. I'll file a formal complaint with the Federal government, once I figure-out to which agency I should file it to, and I'll probably advise my partners that they may be implicitly violating the law by allowing my access to the internet to be discriminated with religious criteria.

My clinic partners are unlikely to join the battle on my behalf. They're great docs, but they are all theists, ranging from Jewish to cafeteria Christians. I'll exercise a little discretion here; the things my collegues do don't jive with what their churches and temples preach, and I suppose I could out them and a whole bunch of others, but by then I'll be posting a "For Sale" sign in my front yard.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what to do. I could resign from the call schedule (EMTALA regulations, for those of you familar with the acronym, probably don't apply here), which would really screw the hospital, but the idea of compromising patient care because of this conflict doesn't sit well with me. I could also start shifting my care to other nearby hospitals in Aspen and Rifle more, but that again penalizes my community for the actions of one person.

Your support gives me courage and hope; I appreciate it more than you may know.

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by Farren
Dr Rick,

I get livid just reading about your co-worker's behaviour. I hope this is resolved to your satisfaction.

In the meantime have the satisfaction of confounding his petty schemes. I've PM'd you the address of a good web anonymizer (which will reroute traffic from IIDB via another domain) and a good list of others.

I'd like that same info too if you don't mind.

The hospital I work at has blocked most religious web sites but the Secular Web and IIDB are still available, thank god (just joking). They also block any streaming media so bandwidth really shouldn't be much of an issue. And they also block proxy sites.

[diana]

Originally posted by Jobar
Rick, I agree that the bandwidth issue is pure bullshit. What you have is a (non-)religious discrimination issue. While at this point I agree that legal threats should not be made a matter of record, if the higher-ups you approach seem to be less than supportive of your rights, I would make the letters A, C, L, and U a prominent part of the conversation. I'll mention this once more then make my exit and leave y'all to it:

It doesn't matter that you all agree that the bandwidth thing is pure bullshit. I think we all agree on that. But if he finds himself in the situation where he needs to make a case, he will need to demonstrate that the "reason" he was given is entirely bogus and/or inconsistently applied across the board.

The "reason" he was given was bandwidth. As far as I know, sys admins have the right and even responsibility to keep an eye on their bandwidth and make judgment calls.

If it becomes necessary to fight it, Rick will find it very useful to be prepared with information that demonstrates that the sys admin applied his "bandwidth concerns" with extreme prejudice. If it is necessary to pursue this, he at present has no evidence to support his contention that the reason he was given was bullshit.

OK. I'm done now.

Good luck, Rick.

d

[The Other Michael]

If he's basing the exclusion on bandwidth, it would follow that he's got comparitive numbers for different sites showing how they fit against the established bandwidth ceiling.

Ask to see the logs that he used to make his determination. If he doesn't have them, he's obviously using it as a smokescreen. If he does have them you can see if there are other sites that should be blocked that aren't, and you can get him on the selective enforcement. There is probably someone here who could run some tests to determine if his numbers for IIDB are bogus.

If he's on the up and up, there should be no problem supplying the data used to justify the action, and he shouldn't be able to complain about supplying the stuff either.

With luck the CEO will just tell him to knock it off. If you do have to go the extra step I don't know if you want to try and do it in a fashion that gives the IT guy a chance to somewhat-gracefully back down without putting his job at risk. I suspect he's not given any thought that enforcing his own prejudices might not jibe with corporate policy, and that it might have some negative rebound.

cheers,
Michael

[Doubting Didymus]

How did the IT guy find out, exactly?

[Mister Impossible]

A very excellently written letter, indeed, Dr. Rick.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree that, while this is a low bandwidth site, your IT-police guy is probably going to argue the opposite with your superior and, since your superior is probably not much of an IT specialist, the IT-police guy's aguement will carry a bit more weight. He'll also use the old 'non-work-related arguement as well, as diana has said.

Bottom line - the Guy's a petty little IT dictator-wannabe. Bide your time and your hour will come. Keep an eye out for co-workers looking at theist sites or, even better, watching those 'oh-so-funny' Flash animations and videos. I just know that goes on in every office in the world. I'll bet people send and recieve those cutesie on-line greetings cards too. the ones which have funny animations and sound files attaced to them. All massive bandwidth eaters. Find out why thes aren't being blocked and demand they are. Send numerous e-mails to IT-police guy, expressing your 'concerns' for the sanctity of his sacred fast-pipe connection.

Remember, this guy is IT support. He has to take all user requests seriously. That means they all have to be read, considered and filed. If you feel your like your help is appreciated, you can always complain that he's not a team player.

Thats just what I would do, though.

Hope it works out for you. Be sure to post any developments.

Have fun

[MilitantModerate]

I fully support the stand you are taking Dr. R. Just one little note. Given that God's IT guy knows you visit this site; this thread is rather obvious and completely open to his perusal. Now he may not have bothered to read it now but if and when the shit hits the fan I would assume that anything said here is an open book to all parties.

[Farren]

MM, the lounge isn't open to people who haven't registered and logged in so there's a fair chance he can't even see this particular forum

[Edit] Doh! just realised this is n SLS

[Viti]

Dr. Rick, I am happy to move this to The Lounge for privacy reasons, even though this is the correct forum for the topic.

Let me know your wishes.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
How did the IT guy find out, exactly?

Last Sunday, while I was on-call waiting in the ICU for a guy being transfered from Vail to our hospital with internal bleeding, I was on line as I bided my time. I was checking my email, which included a huge jpeg of a tractor I may soon be buying (anyone know of a good deal on tractors, btw?) and was switching back and forth between that, a medical site that also carries some big-ass bandwidth reviewing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and the hepatorenal syndrome, an "Islam ain't so good site" gathering info for my ongoing battle in an MF & P thread, and the IIDB. The activity got logged and flagged because of all the bandwidth I was using; and while I can still look at the big jpegs of my future tractor, read ad nauseum about livers and kidneys, and still get the skinny on what's written in the Qur'an, I can't get to the IIDB in my own office.

The bandwidth thing is bullshit, or I wouldn't still be able to gaze adoringly at the 637k jpeg of the latest 4wd Kubota with front-end loader like I still can. My meeting with the IT guy confirmed that the issue is content, not bandwidth. He had printed-out what looked like 50 pages of IIDB stuff; totally unneccessary if bandwidth and not content was the problem. I was polite to the guy, but he could barely constrain his contempt for me. During the meeting he tried to hand me the print-out, but I politely reminded him that I know quite well what's on the site and didn't need to see it. He stated emphatically 3 times, "I'm not turning the site back-on" as I inquired 3 times about how much bandwidth had been used; he never answered the question. I was nice to the guy, never raised my voice to him, and resisted the temptation to leap over his desk and show him what a brown-belt free-thinker can do when insulted; my sensai would be proud

The IT guy is not my co-worker nor equal; he's just a religious dude with attitude. The CEO ain't my boss, either; he can take no action against a doctor on the staff, and I think he doesn't want to start pissing-off the doctors with this kind of nonsense; there's really no upside for him if he does. We'll see if I'm right soon enough.

Thanks again for all the advice and support; I will keep you all apprised.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Dr. Rick, I am happy to move this to The Lounge for privacy reasons, even though this is the correct forum for the topic.

Let me know your wishes.

Nah, let him see it if he wants; I've got nothing to hide, and some nice technical advice on how to get around the ban was provided by PM. Any more comments or advice that need to be kept out of public view can be sent that way.

Thanks for the offer, Brandi, but remember; exposing bigotry to the ridicule of the public is one of the best ways we can fight it.

[Zora]

I used to be in Human Resources, and it would seem to me the CEO would instruct IT guy to mind his own business. You are a revenue producer, IT guy is overhead. End of discussion.

CEO might ask that you not publicize your unbelief: "appearances" in the community, you know. If you've been "passing" so far, the only way anyone is going to know is if IT guy tells everyone. I think IT guy will then be unemployed. IT guys are easily replaced. People such as yourself are not. Sad reality for IT guy, but I've seen this kind of thing happen MANY times.

(Secretary and high-volume sales manager are caught in supply closet. Secretary is "transferred" or a few months later her "position is eliminated." Sales manager wins a Porsche and is given a huge bonus. Little "indiscretion" is overlooked. )

And, where would one go about finding an atheist doctor? I am not comforted by "God is performing the surgery, I'm just the instrument." Have these guys read the Old Testament!!!!! Shit!

[MilitantModerate]

Originally posted by LadyShea
...happy to move this to The Lounge for privacy reasons...

Not to be pedantic, as the Good Doctor doesn't care (neither would I for that matter), but just for the record the Lounge is only a quick registration away. Just something to keep in mind.

[MilitantModerate]

Originally posted by Zora

And, where would one go about finding an atheist doctor?

I was always under the impression that Atheists/Agnostics/etc. were rather well represented amoung doctors (ie. significantly greater percentage than the average population) and engineers and scientists and those University educated in general. Perhaps I am just spoiled up here. ;)

[Richard1366]

As a professional, you probably know a Lawyer that would be willing to draft up a civil suit against the IT guy. Even if the suit is pure b-s, I'll bet that by simply filing the suit and having it served, the IT guy will do anything to get out from under the suit and the potential expense for lawyers, etc.

Since you are independent from the hospital, I'll bet you could come up with any number of professional reasons (i.e. psychological research) for visiting this site.

[Majestyk]

Dr. Rick,

You most certainly have a grievance. Your letter was well outlined and conveyed all the necessary information that the administrator needs to make his decision.

However, you should view any correspondence on this matter as a prelude to a legal confrontation. In so doing I would suggest that you do not over embellish in your written correspondence, as it may find its way into the opposition's inventory of evidence.


Keep them brief and to the salient points. Otherwise do not volunteer information that is not directly requested, speculative, or immediately pertinent to the situation. What you don’t say is less likely to be used against you.

Good luck.

Dan.

[Viti]

Originally posted by MilitantModerate
Not to be pedantic, as the Good Doctor doesn't care (neither would I for that matter), but just for the record the Lounge is only a quick registration away. Just something to keep in mind. Right, but it doesn't even appear to unregistered users, so they wouldn't see a need to register (IMO). I made the offer as a few others mentioned it.

I wouldn't care in his place either and applaud him.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I intend to fight this battle, if that is what it becomes, but the issue here is simultaneously straight-forward and complex.

<snip>

I can go from discreet to nuclear. If the CEO doesn't act appropriately, I will resign my hospital committee positions and cancel my lectures to the staff later this month and next month. I'll file a formal complaint with the Federal government, once I figure-out to which agency I should file it to, and I'll probably advise my partners that they may be implicitly violating the law by allowing my access to the internet to be discriminated with religious criteria.

<snip>

Beyond that, I'm not sure what to do. I could resign from the call schedule (EMTALA regulations, for those of you familar with the acronym, probably don't apply here), which would really screw the hospital, but the idea of compromising patient care because of this conflict doesn't sit well with me. I could also start shifting my care to other nearby hospitals in Aspen and Rifle more, but that again penalizes my community for the actions of one person. Jesus man, it's just a website! Why not check out Slashdot or something? ;)

Sorry, just couldn't resist the obvious joke. It's a horrible shame that you might have to take such an incredibly difficult stand, but why should religious fanatics be the only ones to experience the thrill of martyrdom? Honestly I have a tremendous amount of respect for your willingness to fight this thing to what could be a bitter end. I sincerely believe it's the kind of thing few people would do.

It's the kind of thing I would do, but then I've never been as embedded in a community as you are, so the sacrifice wouldn't be nearly as substantial. It's easy to gamble when you don't have much in the pot. It's truly impressive to hear you detail the lengths to which you are willing to go in defense of your beliefs (or lack thereof). Yet as much as I admire your courage, I still empathize with how much it would suck if your life had to be so severely disrupted by this ridiculous affront. I wish you well.

Tom

[lisarea]

I'm with Tom in spirit on this, Dr. Rick. Fortunately, I am in a better position geographically to purchase libations and write angry letters as a local, should it come to that.

Good luck, and sincere thanks.

[Godless Dave]

Anything new on this, Rick?

[Dr Rick]

The CEO went on vacation the day I delivered the letter to his office, so he wouldn't even see it until 8/19.

I appreciate all the support and great advice I've received; there's been a couple of devolopments, but in keeping with the advice I've received, both here and through PM, I'm going to defer sharing some of the details until I meet with the CEO. I can tell you that I won't be the only one going to him over this, as there are other religious minorities on the medical staff besides me :)

I definitely want to encourage you to post or pm me with any legal or IT advice that you think is important; I'm following most of what you guys suggest to me as we go.

Thanks again, and I'll keep you all posted as best as I can, and will disclose all the juicy details at an appropriate time soon.

Rick

[beth]

Good going. It's good that you are speaking out aginst the Nazi IT guy. Good luck in your meeting with the CEO! :)

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I definitely want to encourage you to post or pm me with any legal or IT advice that you think is important; I'm following most of what you guys suggest to me as we go.
I just want to reiterate what someone else said, about asking the IT guy to back up his bandwidth claims with some stats.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I just want to reiterate what someone else said, about asking the IT guy to back up his bandwidth claims with some stats.

Yeah, with the CEO not being there until the 19th that gives plenty of time for the IT to be able to come up with stats. Since he won't be able to it seems to me that would make his position worse.

[Dr Rick]

Under what authority do I have to demand that the IT guy show me the stats? We all know his story is bullshit, and he wavered between that lame excuse and limiting web access to "hospital business," anyways, so if I call him on it, why would he show the stats to me and prove himself a liar? When I ask him for them, he'll likely say "no;" wouldn't I just be "tipping my hand" by making such a request?

I appreciate everyone's advice, but I'm wondering if a demand to see the stats would amount to nothing right now and possibly even alert the IT guy that something is afoot. If this thing goes forward, we'll have time to get the stats later, so why push for them now?

Does anyone with IT expertise here think that there's any likely merit to the "bandwidth" claim?

I know I'm repeating myself, but you all have been great with your support and advice, and that means a lot to me.

Rick

[Mister Impossible]

There is absolutely no merit to the bandwidth claim.

[The Other Michael]

Rick,

I think you should definitely hold off on asking for the stats until you see what the CEO does. What you might do is work "stats" into a discussion with the CEO, and let the CEO be the one to have the idea to request them.

The IT guy doesn't owe you anything, but he's got to knuckle under to his boss.

A quick glance back through the thread didn't give me the impressin that anyone was saying to get the info now, just to be aware that it should be available and he really needs to be able to provide them to justify his blocking your access.

cheers,
Michael

[Dr Rick]

...could you put that in writing with a short explanation how you know that the bandwidth claim has no merit and your title? Having an outside expert's opinion in writing might prove useful when I meet with the CEO; I would add such an email or pm to my documentation.

If MI can't do it, can any of you?

Thanks

[Barney Gumble]

Superbly written letter Dr. Rick. It's like you're edumecated or sumethin'. :)

As a 32 year old IT guy, I as well will confirm there's no merit to the bandwidth argument, although from the details of your conversation with him that's quite evident even without hard numbers. Your tolerance is commendable, knowing my temper I would probably be in cuffs by now if I had a similar argument.

It is his responsibility to supply weight to his assertion with actual numbers of your usage, which most web proxies will be able to do - only he has the tools and the knowledge to do so. Unless you're constantly browsing the Photoshop thread, this is likely one of the least bandwidth-intensive sites on the net. Very few in-line images, mostly text.

Hell, I can't think of any site I visit on a regular basis that demands less bandwidth.

I'll have to echo the sentiment that he's got some "balls", although that terminology insinuates a semblence of bravery, when in this case I believe it's just bigotry and ignorance. I can't imagine being employed in the IT sector of a hospital and speaking to an established medical professional that way. I like to think I do a decent enough job, but I'm also acutely aware of my place on the pecking order.

I think this guy needs to be reminded of his.

[Mister Impossible]

Dr. Rick.

No problem doing that for you, mate. You will have to wait a couple days for me to put something presentable together, but I'll try and do a thorough job.

My creds:

I have a software Engineering HNC (passed with distinction) and many years experience 'on the job'.

I currenly work as webmaster for a local education authority, maintaining a couple different sites and writing on-line education games for children.

If you want to see our main site, look at: http://www.nwlg.org/

You need a UID and password to see a lot of the stuff, but most everything you'll see is my doing.

Have fun.

[enrious]

Dr. Rick,

In my opinion, based on what you've described, the charge of extreme bandwidth usage by browsing a discussion board is without merit.

Browsing a web page is accomplished by downloading the web site from it's remote location and then viewing it from a copy held on your local computer. The bandwidth used to perform this is a result of the size of the web site to be viewed.

In general, unless certain procedures have been created, all users on a network share from the same amount of bandwidth, but are granted an equal priority when they make a data request. Thus, if you had an Internet connection that had a capacity of 10mbit and had 10 users simultaneously make a data request, each would be granted 1mbit until the number of users requesting data changed. If 5 of those users finished their usage simultaneously, the remaining 5 would be granted 2mbit of bandwidth each, again until the number of requesting users changed.

It should also be noted that once a page is downloaded from the Secular Web (and most other sites), there is no additional traffic occuring. In other words, once the page has loaded in your browser, you are no longer using bandwidth; it is instead returned to the available pool for other users to share.

Given that bandwidth is evenly divided among all who request it at a specific moment and that the more people with access to the network results in a lesser individual impact, I must conclude that accusations of one person visiting a website being individualy responsible for bandwidth issues are without technical merit. In my opinion, if one person visiting a text-based website can cause bandwidth issues, then a network solution should be implemented because that is where the issue is located.

If there are legitimate network bandwidth issues, the correct procedure would not involve restricting a single user from visiting a single website, especially when that website does not contain streaming media. Doing so would be of such minimal impact as to made implementation a waste of resources.

Jonathan Brock, MCNE, MCSE

[Kvalhion]

Just another IT guy saying that the bandwidth excuse doesn't hold water.

Red flags for bandwidth include sites that have streaming media, high graphics content, flash presentations, etc. All these things contribute to the size of the pages when they are loaded. A page full of graphics and other content may have a size of 2MB, which would be loaded by your browser when you browse to the site. The 2MB to load the site would be considered the bandwidth.

To save bandwidth, most browsers allocate hard drive space to cache website content. That means if you view a page that took 2MB to load, leave the site and return a little while later, most of the content for that site will be in your cache. These files would be loaded from the computer's cache. So to revisit that same site your bandwidth would only be 100k or so for the changes while a majority of the content would be loaded without having to be downloaded from the site.

For instance, a site like cbs.com will have a lot of pictures, banners, ads, etc while you are browsing the site. These will likely change daily if you visit the site often as new stories and editorials will be added to keep the site current. That is why cbs.com would be considered a high-bandwidth site.

The reason bandwidth for a site like IIDB is such as weak argument is that the graphical content of the pages rarely changes. This content likely already exists in your internet browser's cache so it takes very little bandwidth to load the site. As a message forum, loading text in the various threads does not require a lot of bandwidth as loading text is very small in size when compared to loading graphics or pictures. Granted some threads may have pictures in them but those are relatively few, and you could even choose not to have those load by selecting the appropriate option in your profile.

A good illustration of these ideas would be to load these sites using a slow connection, such as a 56k connection. To load CBS.com you will probably be sitting for a few minutes while the content transfers and loads. To load IIDB would be much faster as there is primarily text with little graphical content.

I hope you stick to your guns and see this through. This IT guy sounds like he has his own little agenda. Rest assured you can conclusively show he is full of crap. Let us know how it goes and good luck!

[Rhaedas]

Some good descriptions above of why the bandwidth issue isn't a valid argument, but just from a comparitive point of view, you had mentioned in the OP that Rapture Ready was not blocked, and implied other heavy graphical places were viewable as well. I like the idea of not directly attacking his motivations, but "helping" him by pinpointing other obviously wasteful sites based on his diagnosis of bandwidth need for the hospital. Get enough sites blocked on the religious side, and others will join the call of censorship. Maybe.

That's one reason I can't stand browsing many of those sites, not so much of the content, but the fact I'm on a dialup, and many of them are painful to get messages to load. IIDB on the other hand is quite quick for me, being very low on the graphics, the biggest chunk of what has to download on a website.

Either way you take the battle, press on. The guy's got an agenda...it's one thing if he wants to limit everyone, that's within his job duties if he can present the need, but obviously that's not the case.

[Hopeful Monsters]

Dr Rick - I find your story heart-stoppingly shocking.

I hope justice will prevail - it is on your side.

[Mister Impossible]

I just got home from work and it seems enrious and kvalhion have written up pretty convincing accounts anyway.

Theres not really anything to add. They've covered all the bases.

Ah well.

[sophie]

well, well, well, well,

Dr. Rick, that's quite a roughing up your are getting. I would bet the IT fella had his eye on you for quite some while now. You musta have been filling the logs with IIDB, IP requests for quite some time now. It is quite possible he had been turning a blind eye to your using hospital bandwidth for purely personal purposes. Possibly he just got pissed off the day you slowed the system down and he decided to clamp down on your IIDB haunting practices.

If I were you, I would approach him, and apologise for hogging the router and promise him to be more judicious in your further usage. Other than this it may be wise to offer a small sum in lieu of personal usage of the internet, that is if he or they can accept such a transaction.

It is not necessarily the case that because the site is IIDB you have suffered the loss. You could be overreacting in conjunction to the other users of the hospital internet connection, who are not quite as zealous as you are.


I would avoid most of the suggestions offered by the others previously written, except their show of support. You may be paranoic about your atheism and as such may show a tendency to act irrationally. The main thing you should show the IT fella is you are cool (if you really are) and you are willing to accept responsibility for hogging the internet in addition to rectifying your usage practices.

From the eyes of the many to the head of one.

sophie,
You seem to be ignoring a real case of discrimination here. While you do not always have to agree with advice given, this forum is for the support of a Secular Lifestyle, if you cannot offer support for a Secular Lifestyle, do not post here.
-- AspenMama, SL Moderator

[Rhaedas]

I'm sure Dr Rick is hogging all the bandwidth of the system, and there aren't any other users who are pulling resources with the usual chain/religious emails, flash amusements, mainstream news sites with their 90% ads, and of course, no proper christian would use up the hospital's time browsing through any of their personal religious sites they frequent.

Heavy hand there, with all that judging of character...you must know more than we do about the specifics of the situation... :rolleyes:

[ZouPrime]

Dr Rick, I am a information security analyst and I work for a little computer security firm in downtown montreal. I've written a lot of corporate security policies, so I know what users can typically do or not do. So I think I'm entitled to give you some advices. I did not read all of the others posters advices but they seems to say that the IT official stance ("browsing II cost us bandwith") has no merit.

First of all, you should check out your hospital security policy. It may be called by another name. Generaly, an hospital should have some kind of privacy policy, but what you are looking for is something about "usage policy of the hospital facilities" or something like that.

Second, it is very important that you remember that your hospital have complete control over the use of their communication infrastructure. They own it, so they can do whatever they feel like with it, and that's include stopping non-work related browsing from the users. Yes, that's includes the very, very limited bandwith consumed by browsing a forum like II. Even if it's limited, it's still THEIR internet link. They don't even have to give you a reason for their decision. It may sounds harsh, but it is the truth.

By far, your best strategy should be to check if others web sites have been blocked by the IT department. Are you alone in your situation or are ALL non-work related websites also blocked (you may already have answered this question in the threat. i'm sorry). Check out if your local sports fan cannot visit ESPN.com anymore, for example. If it's the case, then you don't have that much leverage, because the banning of II cannot be considered as discrimination on religion. If, on the other hand, only II or other "non-christian" websites are blocked, then you have much more rooms to argumentation, as their "official" stance is no longer valid.

Now, I'm mostly used to Canadian laws, so maybe things are different in the US, but I'm pretty sure my analysis is still valid due south.

[enrious]

ZouPrime,

I think you're right and that it does apply in the U.S.

I think the issue is selective enforcement of a policy, if it exists.

I'm someone who would tend to lock down all non-work related sites but if that's not being done, then it can't be selectively enforced.


That's how I read it.

From the OP:

IIDB has been blocked by my hospital...
...but I can still access Rapture Ready whenever I want.

[ZouPrime]

Yes, that's a good example. But maybe the IT department have not blocked RR because nobody is visiting it. Blocking a website is a opt-in process, not a opt-out one. Maybe the IT department are only blocking websites when they see too often in the proxy log, not bothering with the others. That would actually make sense.

[enrious]

Yes, but it'd make for a very vague policy - the opposite of what you want.


And then you have instances like this, due either to an unclear policy or unfair enforcement of a clear policy.


But I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak.

[lisarea]

Well, clearly, the guy needs to produce the logs in question.

It's not unusual for IT to block sites individually based on their bandwidth or content, and it's almost impossible to create an opt-in list of 'work related sites' in most industries I've worked in. So essentially, it's common and even acceptable to block sites based on bandwidth and content. If that were the case, though, sites like hamsterdance and whatever goony crap is circulating in email would be blocked first. (People know not to send me links to stupid crap like that, so I have no idea what's going around right now.)

I think all you'd really need to show is that there are non work related sites, such as news, entertainment, or religion sites, being accessed during the same time period, and that IIDB was singled out solely based on the content (that is, not simply the fact that it's non work related).

Depending on the size of the facility and the number of accesses, it should be pretty trivial to determine whether he is applying some kind of twisted personal criteria to the enforcement of policy. The fact that he printed out individual threads (I'm really dying to know which ones--were they specifically religious, sex stuff, goofy music threads?) points toward that being the case.

[sakrilege]

Originally posted by ZouPrime
If, on the other hand, only II or other "non-christian" websites are blocked, then you have much more rooms to argumentation, as their "official" stance is no longer valid. Dr Rick did say IT has blocked internet access to a site I frequent that promotes secularism known as the Secular Web while continuing to allow unfettered access by my colleagues to their personal sites. and the excuse given was His claim that this is a “bandwidth” issue so IMO the claim of censorship is valid. If it were a security or policy issue, then why not say that and act accordingly? If the IT Guy is xian then it sounds like another case of lying for jesus.

[Majestyk]

Personally, I would not take any further action on this matter, including requests of and statements to the parties involved, until the CEO has had the opportunity to act on the initial complaint. You can gather all the info from outside sources that are available to bolster your position but, keep the issue to as low a profile as possible until you perceive it to be ignored or it is officially decided against you without just cause.

"The main thing you should show the IT fella is you are cool (if you really are) and you are willing to accept responsibility for hogging the internet in addition to rectifying your usage practices." - sophieism

I think DR already showed the IT dweeb that he was cool. Someone uncool, would have left him with the impression that continued blockage of IIDB would be detrimental to his continued good health and mental well being.

[Viti]

Sophie, your sarcasm is not welcome in this forum. If you feel that that Dr. Rick is doing something wrong, then lay out your reasoning in a polite and straightforward manner.

Dr. Rick is not an employee getting a paycheck from this hospital, he is a highly skilled contractor making money for them by choosing to practice there. The hospital can replace IT guys and afford bandwidth, they cannot as easily replace a trained surgeon or the income he generates.

[BadBadBad]

Dr. Rick,

I've never worked for a hospital, but I've worked with hospital IT folks. This guy is going to be toast. IT guys don't piss off important customers like doctors and get negative letters written about them to CEOs. In addition, I suspect something else that he may be in trouble over is privacy. You mentioned he had a fifty page printout. Were your posts in it? If so, I suspect that's a big big no no almost anywhere, and particularly in a hospital. Plus the bottom line is that it looks like he's singled you out for religious descrimination. Regardless of whether this site gets pulled from the filter list, be satisfied that this guy is going to feel some serious pain over this.

[RufusAtticus]

It probably cost more money to print out IIDB pages than it did to transfer them.

[enrious]

brettc,

The courts have consistently ruled that an employee at work using company resources to connect to the Internet effectively has no right to privacy with those resources.

Thus in most locations, an employee sending and recieving email using a company computer and company bandwidth does not have any privacy regarding the content of their email.

The same applies to browsing websites.


Of course, printing out 50 pages of a website is a terrible waste of company resources and in my opinion, a valid criticism.

[Viti]

enrious...Dr. Rick is not an employee though

[enrious]

Right, but the rulings have been applied to anyone allowed to use the company's resources.

When using company resources to access data networks, all traffic and data is considered to belong to the company, thus there is no individual privacy.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
....The bandwidth thing is bullshit, or I wouldn't still be able to gaze adoringly at the 637k jpeg of the latest 4wd Kubota with front-end loader like I still can....
Each page on IIDB is about 70-100+kb though.
But I guess you could still argue that he is just being unfair.

[BadBadBad]

Originally posted by enrious
brettc,

The courts have consistently ruled that an employee at work using company resources to connect to the Internet effectively has no right to privacy with those resources.

Thus in most locations, an employee sending and recieving email using a company computer and company bandwidth does not have any privacy regarding the content of their email.

The same applies to browsing websites.


Of course, printing out 50 pages of a website is a terrible waste of company resources and in my opinion, a valid criticism.

They may have legal standing to do it, but in my experience, it can be a big no no. I know of one hospital I've worked with where it's grounds for termination. It's one thing for management to decide to monitor a user's activities. It's another altogether for a lowly IT person to take it upon themselves.

If the web site just showed up as unclassified in the log, and the guy just checked out the site, determined it was against the usage policy and clicked filter, he's probably OK. I was curious if the 50-page printout had Dr. Rick's posts on it. That would be different.

[enrious]

Originally posted by brettc
They may have legal standing to do it, but in my experience, it can be a big no no. I know of one hospital I've worked with where it's grounds for termination. It's one thing for management to decide to monitor a user's activities. It's another altogether for a lowly IT person to take it upon themselves.

If the web site just showed up as unclassified in the log, and the guy just checked out the site, determined it was against the usage policy and clicked filter, he's probably OK. I was curious if the 50-page printout had Dr. Rick's posts on it. That would be different.

No argument from me there.

[Albion]

Under what authority do I have to demand that the IT guy show me the stats? We all know his story is bullshit, and he wavered between that lame excuse and limiting web access to "hospital business," anyways,

Hospital business? You said that you could still access sites like "Rapture Ready," didn't you? How is "Rapture Ready" hospital business?

[pz]

It must be a thing about hospital IT staffs -- I was just reading a story (http://doc.blogs.com/blog/2003/08/sphincter_tone_.html) on the "Kill as few patients as possible" blog (http://doc.blogs.com/blog/) that told a similar tale of bureaucratic idiocy.

[keyser_soze]

Working in IT, in a hospital, I'll agree with the poster that said the dweeb would hurt from this one. Hospitals know where their bread is buttered, and it is with the physicians. I have yet to see a hospital NOT bend over backward to keep it's medical pool satisifed. Most have standalone systems that have absolutely NO FILTERING enabled on them for the doctors to cruise the net(that way they don't spread viruses as they have a tendency to download from some non-reputable sites...).

[B34RZ0R]

Hey Dr.

So when your hospitals version of the angry IT guy gets canned let 'em know you have an aquaintance that is experienced in web filtering software that is ready to make the move to CO! ;)

Be Well
Bear

[Ted Hoffman]

Heres my advice.

First is protocol

1. Find out if you have an IT policy of some sort. At the very least, its the duty of the IT guy to make you aware of it. If he doesnt, he should warn you about the detrimental effects of your visiting the site to the bandwidth before blocking it. You deserve to be treated respectfully. If it can be demonstrated that he acted unprocedurally, thats a plus for you.

2. If there is no IT policy, that means his judgement call is baseless, arbitrary and sets it up for challenge because it has no "official" backing.

3. Find out which sites the staff visit. Based on these, you can argue that he acted discriminatively in blocking IIDB and leaving the others.

4. Check out if its permissible for him to specifically monitor your activities to the extent of reading the content of the pages you visit - his could be an abuse of power, violation of privacy etc. Even if by using company resources, you lose the right to privacy (and this has to be supported), making an issue of this will have nuisance value and will rock the IT guys boat. It can be argued that the IT guy is engaging in non-productive and invasive activities. Add the waste of paper and time. He is attempting to preside over your thoughts and ideas and what he is doing is tantamount to mind control.

5. Find out for sure whether there has been a problem of bandwidth or whether the IT God just manufactured it - now I dont know how you will do this. He should be put to task to demonstrate that there is indeed a bandwidth problem. If there is no problem, that subverts his whole argument. If there is a problem, he has to demonstrate that IIDB is/was responsible for that problem.

6. This guy will be smearing you with mud. Whatever he has printed, I am sure, isnt funny. Be prepared to have him use it against you. It might be something vile, morally repulsive or offensive to the religious ones - which your CEO is. Have a strategy for countering this because whereas you will be going for reason, common sense, fairness and decency, he will be appealing to the CEOs emotions - and making YOU look bad - not just chocking the bandwidth, by having questionable preoccupations (maybe its even a thread you never took part in). Character assasination - guilt by association etc etc.

Whether the CEO will be able to stay clear headed in the face of 50 pages of repulsive and scandalous discussions (whatever the hell the idiot has printed) is another matter.

7. You could casually ask one of the IT guys what kind of firewall you use to monitor network traffic - then we can have an idea about the kind of data/stats the IT God can actually provide when he is put to task. Do they keep logs or do they just monitor traffic and go home at the end of the day?

8. Try to resolve this on a verbal level first. Putting things down just makes everyone jittery, defensive and combative. If you want minimum escalation, keep it verbal. This dim IT guy shouldn't be given the ability to disrupt the life and reputation of a respectable doctor of unimpeachable conduct who has dedicated many years of his life to dutifully serving the people of that town. Maybe thats exactly what he is aiming for - a big doctor who is not God-fearing - a small IT guy with Jesus on his side.

9. Stuff I say here might be wholly irrelevant to your specific situation. Check your facts. I see some animations on the home page - why do people keep saying we have mostly text? If this guy is arguing, he will load the home page, not anything else. It would be good to familiarise yourself with as many cases similar to your own as you can. Know exactly how to play your cards. One thing is for certain, the little IT guy has clamped down on you, he shouted back at you that you will stay grounded. That can rile you. Don't act purely out of anger (the ego thingy) because this could be an a huge battle and a little brainless, Jesus-intoxicated toad with a mouse an keyboard and a monitor crouched before him shouldnt be the one to nudge you to the battle field.

It's power play. Don't let him push the buttons.

10. I wish you the best. The CEO will be back today. Tell us what he says.

[Boredom]

I work in IT. My only comment here is that it's ironic how many sick little fundy fucks there are in our field. In just about every other technical/scientific field you find a preponderance of hardcore secularists. For some reason the computer field seems to attract the religious types. Maybe has something to do with the general bastardization of the field as technical "certs" replace real degrees and standards are lowered.

[Majestyk]

Jacob, that's all good advice. Well said.

[DrummerWench]

Doubtless the IT guy is whining to his compatriots on some fundy messageboard about the sicko atheist MD he's dealing with.

DG

[Rhea]

But the sicko atheist MD hasn't been back here yet!

Hey!

Doc!

How'd it go?

(Is this a bad sign?)

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Rhea
But the sicko atheist MD hasn't been back here yet!

Hey!

Doc!

How'd it go?

(Is this a bad sign?)

Hopefully he's out hunting.


For crow to feed the asshole IT guy.

[Ted Hoffman]

Hey Rick.
Don't keep us waiting for too long.

[MrFurious76]

Just bumping, curious to see the outcome :)

[Chiron]

Another (non-)random act of bumpage.

Still waiting to hear the outcome of this distasteful situation,
-Chiron

[Godless Dave]

Let's keep in mind that Dr. Rick is a busy professional with many responsibilities. He might be caring for patients, or riding his horses on his ranch, or spending time with his hot wife. Cut the guy some slack.

[Born Free]

4kin hell I've only just found this. I hope the outcome is a positive one Dr. Rick. Unbelievable.

[Ted Hoffman]

Or he could be out in the streets protesting against this outrageous discrimination.
Or he could be on hunger strike and cant muster enough energy to post here.
Or he could have jumped over the table, swung a fist at the idiot and hit the secretary instead and is now in prison serving a short sentence for aggravated assault.
Or even (attempted) manslaughter [is there such a thing?] - since he has a belt. Or Mayhem (dismemberment) - the guys has surgical skills. So he clobbers a fella with a surgeons precision.

Or he could be answering to charges of violating the religious sensibilities of hard working citizens and infringing on their religious space by bringing to work unpalatable sites.

Or he could be attending court sessions and fielding questions from the press about this landmark case in a small conservative town.
Or he could have decided it is best NOT to handle this issue over the internet. Heck - I could be the IT God :).

Most Importantly:

IIDB has been blocked at his hospital so obviously he can't post us the update. And he leaves work late and starts early. Hes a busy man.

What did you expect? For the great doctor to stride into a CyberCafe in his white Robe and create pandemonium? Sheesh!

[Queen of Swords]

Emirates Internet blocks many sites, but amazingly enough they've left this one alone, for which I am grateful. Can't imagine doing without it.

Hope everything works out for you, Dr. Rick.

[DrummerWench]

Or he's been advised by counsel to refrain from commenting on this situation in public at present. :)

Hope it works out well for you, Dr. Rick, and you can come back and give us a full report.

DG

[Dr Rick]

Sorry for keeping everyone on pins and needles; Jacey and I were in California having some fun until yesterday.

I didn't hear a single thing from the CEO after he got back and before I left this past Friday, so prior to my trip, I dropped him another line, this time by certified mail which his aa signed for 4 days ago:

[Doctors office]
August 21, 2003
Reference: letter of August 7, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL

[CEO][Hospital]

Dear [CEO],

The religious discrimination by [the] Hospital described to you in the letter delivered to your office two weeks ago continues, and neither you nor any representative of [the] Hospital has responded to or even acknowledged my complaint despite repeated messages left with your administrative assistant and on your voice mail.

Consider this letter a formal complaint advising [the] Hospital that it is violating Federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination in facilities participating in Federally-funded programs administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and Colorado statutes specifically defined to include hospitals prohibiting discrimination upon the basis of creed. Be aware that you are not entitled to and may not receive any further notice prior to commencement of those processes in place to remedy violations of federal and state civil rights laws.

Sincerely,


[me]
Enclosure (1)


No news is not good news, unfortunately; I had thought that we would resolve this thing amongst ourselves, but it appears that maybe I have over-estimated the CEO, or he has undersestimated me....or maybe I have over-estimated my importance to him; we shall soon see.

Anyways, I'll give him till the middle of next week to start behaving correctly, and then begin the "process." My approach will likely be two pronged: it turns-out that Colorado has much more strict and to the point statutes* against this sort of meanness, so I'll file with both the state and with the US Dept of Justice. If they don't act, then I'll probably ask the ACLU to step in.

I'll keep you posted as best I can, but I need to be a little discreet in what I post, plus my access during the day is somewhat limited for now.

*Colorado statute 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation. (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business...a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick...
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation...

[echoes]

I haven't even finished reading your post but I just wanted to alert you that in one part of the letter you posted here you forget to omit the name of the hospital...

Edited to say: I'm glad to see you edited out the name of the hospital. I find it hard to believe that the CEO would let this continue to the point that you would have to consider taking legal action; hopefully he'll rectify the situation.

[Godless Dave]

Thanks for the update, Rick, and good luck with this. I won't be praying for you.

[Never]

That you would receive no response whatsoever from the CEO is just incredible to me. I would have expected at the very least a prompt administrative type stall of "We're looking into it".
Keep us updated when you can even if it has to be vague.
Hang in there for all of us.

[Kalkin]

Bump. I know you can't update this regularly Dr. Rick, but I want to keep it active - everyone wants to know how it's going.

[Nowhere357]

Too much time is passing - I'm getting nervous. I thought Dr Rick had a slam dunk, but these are strange days.

I wonder how many times "iidb" has been entered into court documents?

[Dr Rick]

Thanks for the support, guys; I know you've been waiting to hear from me, and I'm very sorry I can't be more explicit about what's happening just yet.

For reasons both directly and indirectly related to this whole thing, I may not be able to act for several more weeks or even months. When I can explain the reasons for the delay, I promise you I will. For the time being, just know that I'm not in any trouble, if that is what has any of you worried.

Your encouragement and interest has been wonderful. I'm sorry I can't fill you all in on everything just now, but when I do, you'll be able to undertand why discretion on my part was necessary.

Thanks again, everyone

Rick.

[B34RZ0R]

Good to hear Dr, and quite the little cliff hanger your leaving us with :D.
Good luck in your pursuit!

Be Well my fellow Infidel,
Bearach

[Roland98]

Wow, what a soap opera. How appropriate that one of the main characters involved in the drama is named "Dr. Rick." I can just see Matt LeBlanc in the role now...

[Pierre Bezukhov]

Here's to a fortuitous outcome, Doc! (I'd say "good luck", but I'm trying cut back on the superstition of luck.)

[Nowhere357]

Well, I'm reduced to guessing. Maybe the IT guy and the CEO have been dating, and Rick's trying to get some pictures. Leverage, since they already have wives. :D

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Thanks for the update, Rick, and good luck with this. I won't be praying for you.
Neither will I. Let's all join together as a family of infidels in non-pray for our brother, Dr. Rick.

[brighid]

Thank you for the update Dr. Rick. I have been thinking about you and your situation, hoping that no news is good news. It seems to be such and this is a relief! I know I look forward to a more detailed explanation some time in the future.

As ex-xian suggested, let's all join in some non-prayer for our brother Rick!

Brighid

[Suaup]

The tension.. the suspense...

Will Dr. Rick defeat the system and claim victory and equal rights for all? Will IT Guy and his henchmen get away with their dastardly plot? Will CEO intervene on the side of good, or bad? Will God smite the sinners who have tarnished his name? Find out next week on, IIDB has been blocked by my hospital.

You have my full support. I too will not be praying for you. Best of luck, you deserve equality and victory in this matter for all of us in the secular community.

[Arkus 02]

I also won't be praying for you. Have fun ridding the world of idol-worshiping idiots!

[openeyes]

Originally posted by Roland98
Wow, what a soap opera. How appropriate that one of the main characters involved in the drama is named "Dr. Rick." I can just see Matt LeBlanc in the role now... Matt LeBlanc? Surely we can do better than that!

[DMB]

I've only just seen this thread. What a horrible situation! I do admire the way you've dealt with it, Dr Rick.

I am sure you will have the support of all the regulars here.

[Dr Rick]

I was kinda' hoping for Tom Cruise to reprise my role...

Anyways, the ending to this little drama has been revealed (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61923).

[Daggah]

Originally posted by openeyes
Matt LeBlanc? Surely we can do better than that!

Oh come on...soap operas aren't supposed to get good actors anyway. :)

[lisarea]

How about Hasselhoff? He's kind of the poor man's Tom Cruise, isn't he?

Or vice versa or whatever.