![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ISeekPeace on June 21, 2004, at 1:55:00
What's in a name?
Posted by Shar on June 21, 2004, at 23:08:16
In reply to Name change me, posted by ISeekPeace on June 21, 2004, at 1:55:00
Maybe everything, maybe nothing..still..Somebody asked............
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
"Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet meet and fall in love in Shakespeare's lyrical tale of "star-cross'd" lovers. They are doomed from the start as members of two warring families. Here Juliet tells Romeo that **a name is an artificial and meaningless convention** [emphasis mine, Shar], and that she loves the person who is called "Montague", not the Montague name and not the Montague family. Romeo, out of his passion for Juliet, rejects his family name and vows, as Juliet asks, to "deny (his) father" and instead be "new baptized" as Juliet's lover. This one short line encapsulizes the central struggle and tragedy of the play."
**********************************************
I couldn't have said it any better m'self. Tho' if we get to know each other under one, then change to another...we don't necessarily know each other anymore. N'est ce pas?
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2004, at 0:14:59
In reply to Name change me, posted by ISeekPeace on June 21, 2004, at 1:55:00
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 22, 2004, at 5:48:28
In reply to What's in a name? Great question., posted by Shar on June 21, 2004, at 23:08:16
"Tho' if we get to know each other under one, then change to another...we don't necessarily know each other anymore."
What upsets me about the secret name changes (secret in that we don't know their previous name) is not that WE don't know each other anymore.. its that *I* don't know them anymore, but they know everything they always have done about me.
It makes me very uncomfortable, and I truly don't like it. If I were to change my name (which I've been thinking of doing, just cos I'm boreed!), I would make sure everyone knew who I was, else it would feel, to me, like I was trying to cheat them in some way.. So if you see a Mrs Frisby, thats me *laughing* No.. I won't change my name.. but you get what I am talking about!!
Nikki x
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2004, at 21:52:03
In reply to Re: What's in a name? Great question. » Shar, posted by NikkiT2 on June 22, 2004, at 5:48:28
> What upsets me about the secret name changes ... is not that WE don't know each other anymore.. its that *I* don't know them anymore, but they know everything they always have done about me.
Hmm, well, what about new posters? They may have read all your posts, but you don't know anything about them...
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:35:41
In reply to Re: they know everything, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2004, at 21:52:03
> Hmm, well, what about new posters? They may have read all your posts, but you don't know anything about them...
>
> BobI think the difference is that the someone may have had an upleasant interaction with the poster whose name has been changed.
Posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:38:35
In reply to Re: they know everything » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:35:41
I have to say, I'm not really bothered by name changes myself, I wanted to point out why someone may feel differently though.
Posted by karen_kay on June 24, 2004, at 18:13:26
In reply to Although..., posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:38:35
booo! i caught you and now i'm going to hug you until you can breathe no more. (perhaps then i can assert my skills in mouth to mouth?)
(((((((((((((((gabbi)))))))))))))))))
missed you dearly! now, i'll keep this admin and say i agree with everything you said (unless it was uncivil, then i completely agree! ha, but let me read what you said first!)
Posted by karen_kay on June 24, 2004, at 18:14:01
In reply to Although..., posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:38:35
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:29:17
In reply to Re: they know everything » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:35:41
> > what about new posters? They may have read all your posts, but you don't know anything about them...
>
> I think the difference is that the someone may have had an upleasant interaction with the poster whose name has been changed.True, in that case, it's like giving them a chance to start over. Is that a bad thing?
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 19:41:33
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:29:17
Is it a bad thing?
Well in one case I was certainly angry about it. However, I realize that you can't really judge every case individually so overall, no, I don't think it's a bad thing, that's why I'm not really bothered by the name changes.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 25, 2004, at 4:53:29
In reply to Re: they know everything » Dr. Bob, posted by gabbix2 on June 24, 2004, at 16:35:41
Thats it exactly.
If someone has been uncivil to me, and then later comes back with a different name.. well, that makes me feel wierd.
I know everyone can read any message they like from me (as far back as the search goes), but the idea of me having an exchange with someone, and discussing my life with someone, and then a few weeks later they come back with a different name.. Dunno, just makes me uncomfortable.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 25, 2004, at 4:54:48
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:29:17
I think history has proved that it can be a bad thing.
Some people hurt you so bad that forgiveness just cannot be found sometimes, atleast not for quite some time. And also, forgiveness needs to be earnt.. coming back with a different name and hiding isn't something that I feel earns my forgiveness.
Nikki
Posted by Shar on June 25, 2004, at 23:36:22
In reply to Re: starting over » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on June 25, 2004, at 4:54:48
It seems that part of the purpose here is to provide support. When support occurs, a connection is (usually) made between two people. If an insult or other form of dissing occurs, a connection is NOT made, one knows who one wants to stay AWAY from (not respond or maybe even read their posts).
In the case of a name change, it might be a second chance, but given the nature of personalities (as in 'a leopard doesn't change its spots') one person is automatically in a one-down position.
For example, someone who was terribly rude to me and hurt me awfully, changes their posting name. A name change does not mean that THEY have changed, just a superficial aspect of them in an extremely public forum. So, I could be concerned about them and express as much in subsequent posts, and (given human nature) they are in a perfect position to ambush me when I express that concern (or, wait until I post something near and dear to my heart, and then ambush me).
Sometimes there are very good reasons for name changes, so I'm not suggesting it be disallowed. Just...in general, without a 'good' reason, I'm not comfortable with it.
Cynically (or is it paranoidly?) yours,
Shar
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 11:19:06
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:29:17
> > I think the difference is that the someone may have had an upleasant interaction with the poster whose name has been changed.
>
> True, in that case, it's like giving them a chance to start over. Is that a bad thing?
>
> Bob<<<<<< I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
It may not seem the same to you because you call the shots and in one of the scenarios, you apparently hadn't found the name changer unredeemably uncivil, or uncivil at all. But the poster affected may not have agreed on that ruling, or could have been justified in feeling offended even if technically no rules were broken. It's subjective -- people just like to decide for themselves whether a fresh start is warranted, and want their decisions respected, exactly as you do by making circumventing your blocks an offense of the highest order (I'm assuming you don't do that *only* because you are certain the person will again wreak havoc).
BUT -- I do realize that there are important cases of real-life need to change names, and those could never be feasibly verified, so the total anonymity option has to remain. I just don't know that the decision to do so without *any* statement as to why is the one, between the two, that should be defended/informally condoned by Admin.
This board does seek to be a community much more so than other boards. If the returning person only wants to seek dry, technical info such as on meds, maybe it doesn't matter as much either. But if they hope to interact on deeper and more personal levels with people, I think they should understand if others hesitate. (And if they changed names only due to feeling embarrassed about something, I think they should consider that coming back totally blind stands to conjure much worse possibilities than having embarrassed oneself ever could.) Yes, it is their right, but I don't necessarily think it should go hand in hand with feeling rightEOUS about having chosen to do it. (Again, except when a real-life matter was involved).
I'm in that same situation, but if I do change names, I plan to do something to make sure my cards are on the table. I think Yoshimi did it in a good way. First, by respecting people's concerns and being forthcoming that there was a reason. Second, by emailing some people to show "legitimacy" that way, which surely went a long way towards putting the whole board at ease by proxy.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 16:06:21
In reply to Re: starting over » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 11:19:06
> 'a leopard doesn't change its spots'
Isn't that the idea of therapy?
> For example, someone who was terribly rude to me and hurt me awfully, changes their posting name. A name change does not mean that THEY have changed, just a superficial aspect of them in an extremely public forum. So, I could be concerned about them and express as much in subsequent posts, and (given human nature) they are in a perfect position to ambush me when I express that concern (or, wait until I post something near and dear to my heart, and then ambush me).
>
> SharUnfortunately, not all leopards do change their spots, but that's where blocking comes in...
--
> I do realize that there are important cases of real-life need to change names... I just don't know that the decision to do so without *any* statement as to why is the one
>
> spocHmm, you're suggesting that people also be required to post a reason when they change their name?
Bob
Posted by gabbix2 on June 26, 2004, at 17:09:01
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 16:06:21
I really am in agreement with you two. I've just gotten so cynical, that if someone changed their name without giving a reason for it, I'd probably give them a wide birth for a long time.
It's hard to say, because a lot of things don't bother me as much as they did, simply because after various administrative decisions, and
feeling for a while that I had a target on my back almost as big the one ZenHussy has, I just don't have the same emotional connection here that I used to.
Not that I don't want to, it just isn't there.
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 17:46:11
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 16:06:21
> > I do realize that there are important cases of real-life need to change names... I just don't know that the decision to do so without *any* statement as to why is the one (...went on to say "to be defended/informally condoned by Admin..")
> >
> > spoc
>
> Hmm, you're suggesting that people also be required to post a reason when they change their name?
>
> Bob<<<<< I just like to examine all angles. I meant pretty much literally what I said, before truncation, above. That maybe people can't or shouldn't be made to give a reason (they could say whatever they wanted anyway), but that I think it should be encouraged by Admin, rather than stoically defending the choice of total anonymity. It seems to me that should just be known as the riskier and less desireable way, including in the tone about it from management.
Please, everyone know that I do respect that some do have an IRL need to change names as quietly as possible. My point, for the others not giving any reason at all, was just to weigh it extremely carefully; be prepared for whatever does and doesn't happen because of it; and understand why others may feel the way they do.
No one has anything to go on, and that person would likely feel the same themself. If someone was making crank phone calls to you, you wouldn't necessarily become willing to pick up the phone for them again just because they started calling from a different number. Or, if someone upset you past your limit, then came back wearing a mask, thinking that should be all it takes. Regardless of whether the person actually does offend again in the above cases is just not all there is to it. You might well say, "Good luck with THAT! But sorry, I have to pass." And that would be reasonable, or at least you'd probably want that right.
Which leads in to.... I was hoping you'd respond to whether the following brought the point home or not, about whether having a "fresh start" forced (for lack of better word) on one is such a bad thing:
> > I think the difference is that the someone may have had an upleasant interaction with the poster whose name has been changed.
>
> True, in that case, it's like giving them a chance to start over. Is that a bad thing?
>
> Bob> > I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
>
> > It may not seem the same to you because you call the shots and in one of the scenarios, you apparently hadn't found the name changer unredeemably uncivil, or uncivil at all. But the poster affected may not have agreed on that ruling, or could have been justified in feeling offended even if technically no rules were broken. It's subjective -- people just like to decide for themselves whether a fresh start is warranted, and want their decisions respected, exactly as you do by making circumventing your blocks an offense of the highest order (I'm assuming you don't do that *only* because you are certain the person will again wreak havoc).
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:00:07
In reply to Re: starting over » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 17:46:11
> > > I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
Isn't that more like asking someone not to post to you and them changing their name and doing so?
> > > people just like to decide for themselves whether a fresh start is warranted, and want their decisions respected
That would be understandable, but how would that work here?
Bob
Posted by spoc on June 28, 2004, at 12:36:03
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:00:07
> > > > I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
>
> Isn't that more like asking someone not to post to you and them changing their name and doing so?<<<<< That's also a good example. But the point with my other example was to get *you* to understand how it might feel, since you asked: is it such a bad thing (for people to give themselves a fresh start simply through anonymity). But maybe the example you just added also is one that better helps *you* picture how it might feel, since you do stand behind "don't post to me" requests, and want your instructions there respected too.
> > > > people just like to decide for themselves whether a fresh start is warranted, and want their decisions respected
>
> That would be understandable, but how would that work here?
>
> Bob<<<<<< Again, everything I posted on this thread was just to show how it *feels,* because you didn't seem to understand that or agree. I specifically said I doubt anything formal can be done about it. Maybe I shouldn't lend opinions if I don't have the answer. I did think that was ok too, but I do get frustrated at the times it seems to lead to confusion or distortion of what I actually said (and I mean in general, not just concerning you). I guess that's a risk of speaking up.
Anyway, here, to an extent I actually was making a suggestion of sorts. Which is that Admin could set the example that completely anonymous changes are the less desireable choice. As of now the stance has seemed to convey that it is all completely well and good and no one's business at all. As we all realize, no decision/policy can ever make all people happy. And I've said, I know there is true real-life need for anonymous rebirth sometimes, and I don't want to offend those people. But as Admin seeks to serve the greater good; and does have influence through its tone; I just think it is better applied (loudly) in discouragement of the practice except in emergencies. Does that make more sense?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2004, at 3:23:54
In reply to Re: starting over » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on June 28, 2004, at 12:36:03
> I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
IMO, it's different if there are rules involved. If no rules are being broken, it's OK with me if they give themselves a fresh start.
1. Maybe it'll be better that way.
2. > if a bad apple falls it will be seen sooner or later...
3. I try to accept the things I cannot change.> that Admin could set the example that completely anonymous changes are the less desireable choice. As of now the stance has seemed to convey that it is all completely well and good and no one's business at all.
Hmm, they wouldn't have to say, and shouldn't be pressured, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be asked what their old name was or why they changed it...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.