![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:21:13
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » one woman cine, posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:17:47
Yup first name is a thread of yours you're lucky as I'm all over the place. Hence never post my e-mail address publically. Love Phillipa
Posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 12:24:26
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » one woman cine, posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:17:47
Thanks, Jan - but I have no idea as to how that relates to what I or anyone else was talking about. Whatsoever.
What are you talking about?
Posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:30:38
In reply to Non-sequitur or did I miss something? » Phillipa, posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 12:24:26
Babble safety as what you say on babble ends up on the internet. Hence why posting names are so important. I thought it pertained to the safety issues. love Phillipa
Posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 12:35:48
In reply to Re: Non-sequitur or did I miss something? » one woman cine, posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:30:38
Posting names and internet safety are separate issues.
As are private e-mails etc.
My asking if someone is posting with two names is not internet safety, it's about the workings of babble because it's confusing for me at times.
Posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:50:48
In reply to safety versus names » Phillipa, posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 12:35:48
I agree it's very confusing. That's the reason I brought it up as I see some others posting on line their private e-mail addresses and didn't think it warranted an additional thread. Sorry if this confused you. Yes e-mails are very private. But who needs someone undesirable with your address. Love Phillipa
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:44:22
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » one woman cine, posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:17:47
> Thing that has come up before is that if you google outside to the internet your posting name in all probability you will come up I know my posts have many times. Love Phillipa
Which is why I never sign my posts with my real name, or have any information on the rest of the internet which connects LlurpsieNoodle to her real life identity.
Which is why I don't give out personal information to those I do not trust.
Which is why personal information one knows (or even *suspects*) about a particular poster should never be shared unless that poster is comfortable with it.
Which is why babblemails are superior to e-mails. Because e-mails cannot be monitored or verified by Dr. Bob for civil content.
However. Babblemails ARE protected arenas and when bad things happen via babblemails they should be reported to the deputies and Dr. Bob. Failing to report something that was improper or uncivil that happened in a babblemail might give a poster the idea that it's appropriate to do certain behaviors again and again.
I think it's wonderful that when I google my name I get to see some of my old posts. I might have even gotten to see my blog, where I tried to save some of the better babble posts that I wrote. I recently had to delete my blog because of too much curiosity about who this Llurpsie person is. I have no problem with anyone wanting to know more about Llurpsie. What I have a problem with is when people try to get more information out of Llurpsie concerning her real life identity.
The thing about keeping a blog though is that it requires a lot of upkeep. I haven't updated my blog in many months. Blogs are like the wild west of the internet. That's why I would never post anything on a blog that would compromise my IRL identity. I would never post something on a blog that I wasn't perfectly happy with the entire world wide web reading.
Similarly, I would never post anything on psycho-babble that I would be comfortable with the whole world wide web reading.
However, occasionally one ends up finding support from getting to know another babbler better. That's why the babblemail function is so nice. Because I can get to know the other person better, and they can get to know me better and that might help us support one another better.
However, it's inappropriate to share that information that is contained in a private babblemail with the public world wide web via psychobabble channels.
What I would be interested in knowing is whether a private babblemail communication from person A to person B should be communicated to person C, after person A makes it very clear that person B should not share person A's personal communication.
Does that constitue a blockable offense? What about if person B has a pattern of this behavior. Don't worry LlurpsieNoodle. You can trust me [not to post this on psychobabble]. Can I trust person B not to pass this information onto person C? What about person D? E? F?
I recently went to a lecture about social networks. There are some people who form nodes in social networks. That means that they share information with many people. Many people may tell them things. Sometimes they tell them things because they provide useful information or support. Sometimes they tell them things because NOT to tell them something might lead to great misunderstandings. These people have information about a lot of people. They may also have reciprocal relationships, in which they share information back to someone else. That is, person A tells person B something personal. Then person B tells person A something personal. This is a very nice thing when that something personal is used to provide support.
One of the things that happens with people who know and are known by a lot of people is that they develop many reciprocal relationships. They may share personal information *about other people* with those people that they feel like sharing it with. This is all very fine in the real world. When I call 911, I expect the operator to pass on the information to the fire department that my house is on fire
In babble-world however, there is absolutely no justification for person B to tell others information about another person.
There are several reasons why person B should not tell person C private information about person A.
1) it compromises the trust that persons A and B have between one another
2) it compromises an agreement that babblemailers make via their participation in babblemail: that information shared in babblemail- no matter how innocent or trivial or irreleant or urgent or important - should never be posted on psychobabble boards.
3) if person A WANTS person C to know something personal about himself, then person A has the opportunity to tell persona C himself. There is no need for facilitation, no matter how "nice" it may feel to connect people who share something [personal and private] in common.
4) it compromises the trust that others have in person B. Once person B starts telling others personal information about person A, why would person B be trusted to keep anybody's information confidential?
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:50:53
In reply to What constitutes shared information?, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:44:22
>
> Similarly, I would never post anything on psycho-babble that I would be comfortable with the whole world wide web reading.
>oopsie. I meant to say "I would never post anything on psychobabble boards that I would NOT be comfortable with the whole world reading"
especially typos!
-Ll
Posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 13:54:59
In reply to What constitutes shared information?, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:44:22
Very true hence why I e-mail with most people. Babblemail to me is for exchanging e-mails if the person so desires. But who has the time or desire to pass infor on and on? I don't. I just don't like my posts from babble on the internet that's just me. I share personal info via e-mail only. Most personal stuff about me is on the meds board. Age, State, hospitalizations, marital status. My choice to post. I just started a thread about the internet stuff. Love Phillipa
Posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 14:08:24
In reply to What constitutes shared information?, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:44:22
Lurps,
You have hit the nail on the head. I have had the exact same problems you are having/had. Things do get posted on abble which over time, someone can glean info about you. No doubt.
The things that have happened to me are proof.
>>>>>However, it's inappropriate to share that information that is contained in a private babblemail with the public world wide web via psychobabble channels.
>>>>>What I would be interested in knowing is whether a private babblemail communication from person A to person B should be communicated to person C, after person A makes it very clear that person B should not share person A's personal communication.
>>>>>Does that constitue a blockable offense? What about if person B has a pattern of this behavior. Don't worry LlurpsieNoodle. You can trust me [not to post this on psychobabble]. Can I trust person B not to pass this information onto person C? What about person D? E? F?
This has happened to me - you have every right to mad and angry and actually, enraged. Unfortunately, as far as I know - it is not a blockable offense. Posters can pass around other babblemails to other posters (& even SOLICIT!) other posters to get private communications.
In fact, someone can post personal info about someone IRL, as long as they aren't babblers. Doesn't seem fair, to give out personal info when you in fact are "anonymous". I'm pretty upset/sickened by the recent turn of events in my life & babble hasn't, nor will be, the same for me.
>>>>>In babble-world however, there is absolutely no justification for person B to tell others information about another person.
I totally agree.
>>>>>There are several reasons why person B should not tell person C private information about person A.
>>1) it compromises the trust that persons A and B have between one another
>>2) it compromises an agreement that babblemailers make via their participation in babblemail: that information shared in babblemail- no matter how innocent or trivial or irreleant or urgent or important - should never be posted on psychobabble boards.
>>3) if person A WANTS person C to know something personal about himself, then person A has the opportunity to tell persona C himself. There is no need for facilitation, no matter how "nice" it may feel to connect people who share something [personal and private] in common.
>>4) it compromises the trust that others have in person B. Once person B starts telling others personal information about person A, why would person B be trusted to keep anybody's information confidential?
I suspect there are many reasons why people feel compelled to share info that is not their own - including everything from innocent slips of the tongue to malicious revenge.
I am smarter and stronger despite all this. My PTSD has seriously been triggered - but I have some pit-bull lawyers to take care of those who continue to give me grief.
Babblers: be warned about seeming privacy and the myth of anonymity of the internet. Be careful of who you speak to and who you trust. Be careful about what you post and the info contained therein. I've been burned, others have been burned. The internet can be a tool or a weapon.
I am really sorry all this has happened to you - no one deserves that.
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 14:26:31
In reply to babblers be warned, posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 14:08:24
I suppose the internet can be a tool and a weapon.
Personally I prefer to use it as a tool. I am capable of yielding it as a weapon.
But this is neither the time nor place for that.
I'm happy that you have some lawyers working for you.
I don't really see the need for lawyers in my particular circumstance. A gentle nudge from an administrator would do the trick.
But a stich in time saves nine. As a seamstress (see! that's personal information! or am I lying?) I know that once the seam starts unravelling it unravels in both directions.
I'd like to propose that information shared in Babblemails should not be passed on to others via babblemails. That doing so compromises others' safety.
If somepeople want to pass on private information via e-mails, that is outside the realm of babbleonia. Babblers be warned indeed.
OWCine, I'm so sorry that you have been violated. It is truly a horrible feeling to have your IRL identity known by people you don't trust. I'm glad that you have resources that you can use, like your pitbull lawyers to prevent further damage.
Thank you for your contribution to my thread. I think you understand.
Posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 14:35:10
In reply to Re: babblers be warned » one woman cine, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 14:26:31
>>>I'd like to propose that information shared in Babblemails should not be passed on to others via babblemails. That doing so compromises others' safety.
There is actually no way to stop this. At all. That's the warning. The only way to be absolutely safe is babblemail nothing of personal importance unless you are absolutely sure.
BTW, lawyers only got involved because it was RL, which is never, ever acceptable.
I hope your situation is cleared up soon.
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 15:08:29
In reply to Re: babblers be warned » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 14:35:10
> >>>I'd like to propose that information shared in Babblemails should not be passed on to others via babblemails. That doing so compromises others' safety.
OneWomanCine,
several months ago, I decided not to get involved in changing babble policy. I found that it was just too frustrating. That was when Dr. Bob actually checked the admin board on a fairly regular basis, too. I decided that there was no point to me trying to change the situations when I *personally* was not affected.Now I have been personally affected. Am I scared? not really, because I have the tools to deal with this babblemess.
So, I make a proposal to extend a rule that was designed to keep our personal info out of the public eye. The rule I would like to extend is that personal information (specifically information that one has asked the other interloctur NOT to pass on) not be passed on.
I found out that my personal information had been passed on. I don't know why anyone would do such a thing. There are so many motivations ranging from an innocent slip of the tongue to something much more malignant.
A simple apology would make me feel a lot better.
I have tried to elicit an apology before. But there was denial of the offense. Sometimes people don't realize the consequences of their actions until they are laid out crystal clear. Sometimes people don't realize that despite their best intentions they caused the other person to hurt. Sometimes it takes time to allow the anger of being accused of something to subside to recognition that one has participated in a hurtful behavior.
For my part, I would have liked to keep this grievance off the boards. I have tried different ways of dealing with this on my own, and using the resources that babble has for when one poster hurts another.
Here I am. airing grievances. yep.
but it's not too late. A simple apology would go a long way to my feeling better about the whole situation. There may be other people who deserve an apology too, as has come to my attention recently.
Posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 15:22:44
In reply to What constitutes shared information?, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 13:44:22
I'm going to ask a "duh" question - did you notify the administration about the babblemail issue?
I thought (and I trained to be a deputy for over a year, twice!) that it was against the site rules for someone to pass on personal information about another poster.
My understanding about babblemail civility guidelines is that they follow the same ones as the rest of the site. Dr Bob would need to have the electronic thumbprint of the message (I personally have been fingerprinted, but have never tried to get a print off an electronic message).
I post this in the dim hope that Dr Bob isn't aware of the breach of privacy that happened to you.
take care,
Scratchpad
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 15:28:10
In reply to Re: What constitutes shared information? » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 15:22:44
> I'm going to ask a "duh" question - did you notify the administration about the babblemail issue?
you betcha. all the administrators I could.
> I thought (and I trained to be a deputy for over a year, twice!) that it was against the site rules for someone to pass on personal information about another poster.
I guess I thought so too.
> My understanding about babblemail civility guidelines is that they follow the same ones as the rest of the site. Dr Bob would need to have the electronic thumbprint of the message (I personally have been fingerprinted, but have never tried to get a print off an electronic message).I have sent Dr. Bob copies of offensive emails, with fingerprints. It's his job to read them and verify their accuracy.
> I post this in the dim hope that Dr Bob isn't aware of the breach of privacy that happened to you.I have received no acknowledgement from Dr. Bob that he recieved my complaints about the babblemails.
>
> take care,
> ScratchpadYou too scratchie :)
-Ll
Posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 16:09:42
In reply to Re: What constitutes shared information? » scratchpad, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 15:28:10
I mean, the guy might be busy, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing his job here.
:-(
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 16:16:18
In reply to Well, that's not right! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 16:09:42
I feel the same way. I've been asking for some acknowledgement of this matter for over two weeks now. It's inappropriate to say what the matter is in the public arena.
I still cross my fingers though. Optimism?
I dunno.
I guess I have better things to do with my time than to get sucked into a babblemess. I push it onto someone else's plate for now.
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 16:29:05
In reply to Re: Well, that's not right! » scratchpad, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 16:16:18
oh yeah. you forgot to remind me to take my klonopin, but I did anyways ;)
In the past, I would have taken matters into my own hands and done bad things. I think I have come a long way. Now I am patient. I have waited. I have been civil despite being hurt.
I took steps to protect myself when I felt most endangered. I communicated my grievances and stuck up for myself when in the past I would have just disappeared...
I don't feel like disappearing though. I feel like squeaking. Hear me the squeaking wheel
sqeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkk
And if I'm just a poor poster who's had too much dumped on me all at once, well that may be true. Wouldn't people who support me want to make things easier for me, not harder?
So many folks have and I am grateful for the support that babble gives. Support and safety.
Just trying to patch up a few holes in the safety net, that's all.
((((ScratchPad)))))
and other folks who are simpatico
and all the other folks who are endangered by this little hole in the safety net.
Posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 22:16:19
In reply to Re: Well, that's not right! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 16:29:05
I emailed the Bobster and reminded him that he has an outstanding complaint that requires a response. We'll see if I have any currency with the Emperor. Not bloody likely, but perhaps the lad has forgotten. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
sp
Posted by one woman cine on April 19, 2007, at 7:57:57
In reply to Re: What constitutes shared information? » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by scratchpad on April 18, 2007, at 15:22:44
>>>>I thought (and I trained to be a deputy for over a year, twice!) that it was against the site rules for someone to pass on personal information about another poster.
See, now - I was told publicly on the boards by two posters that it is NOT against site guidelines to share babblemails with another poster (this was about a month ago) - that's it's perfectly OK and not violating any FAQ's or civility rules.
So, some people say it's OK, and other say it's not - is this a subjective rule or a hardandfast rule.
I'm very confused and angry that this is occurring - no matter to whom is being violated.
Posted by one woman cine on April 19, 2007, at 8:16:47
In reply to Re: babblers be warned » one woman cine, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 18, 2007, at 15:08:29
Sometimes apologies work, sometimes they don't - I wish I could be more forgiving - but it depends on the motivations.
I do hope this is cleared up soon.
Posted by scratchpad on April 19, 2007, at 8:27:47
In reply to now wait a minute! » scratchpad, posted by one woman cine on April 19, 2007, at 7:57:57
> >>>>I thought (and I trained to be a deputy for over a year, twice!) that it was against the site rules for someone to pass on personal information about another poster.
>
> See, now - I was told publicly on the boards by two posters that it is NOT against site guidelines to share babblemails with another poster (this was about a month ago) - that's it's perfectly OK and not violating any FAQ's or civility rules.
>
> So, some people say it's OK, and other say it's not - is this a subjective rule or a hardandfast rule.
>
> I'm very confused and angry that this is occurring - no matter to whom is being violated.
>
>Here's a quote from the FAQ in the section regarding privacy:
"If someone else has posted information that identifies or private communications from you and you object, or if you did so yourself and have changed your mind, please contact me.
If you receive an abusive email or babblemail from someone here, please forward it directly to me (with all its headers, if you know how to do that). FWIW, I can then block any Psycho-Babble or associated Yahoo Group registrations using that email address."
That seems very clear to me. Do you agree?
Scratchpad
Posted by scratchpad on April 19, 2007, at 8:42:39
In reply to Re: now wait a minute! » one woman cine, posted by scratchpad on April 19, 2007, at 8:27:47
> That seems very clear to me. Do you agree?
> Scratchpad
>If I got this interpretation wrong, then let's all be grateful that I'm NOT a deputy, as I clearly don't know what I'm talking about!
sp
Posted by one woman cine on April 19, 2007, at 8:47:29
In reply to Re: now wait a minute! » one woman cine, posted by scratchpad on April 19, 2007, at 8:27:47
Well, either I totally misinterpreted what was told to me - or I was given misinformation.
I'm not sure - when all this happened to me very publicly on this very site - no action was taken regarding the personal info/communications - it was just XXXX'd out - multiple times - the person in question was not blocked or reprimanded for doing that (but for something else) - in fact, the person in question was initally unblocked.
The impression I got was that it was OK -
Posted by gardenergirl on April 19, 2007, at 9:40:59
In reply to Re: now wait a minute!, posted by one woman cine on April 19, 2007, at 8:47:29
> Well, either I totally misinterpreted what was told to me - or I was given misinformation.
>
> I'm not sure - when all this happened to me very publicly on this very site - no action was taken regarding the personal info/communications - it was just XXXX'd out - multiple times - the person in question was not blocked or reprimanded for doing that (but for something else) - in fact, the person in question was initally unblocked.
>
> The impression I got was that it was OK -It's certainly not considered discreet behavior by a portion of the internet community. Netiquette suggests that one does not forward private information and/or personal statements without the author's permission. It's difficult to enforce, though. At least here we can forward Babblemails which seem problematic (re privacy) to Dr. Bob to address (at some point in the future when he finds the time). And of course we should keep in mind that the internet is essentially not private. This board is definitely not private.
Here is one view on the etiquette of forwarding emails: http://www.cynthiaarmistead.com/internet/forward2.shtml
It takes a hard line. I realize that there's probably a continuum of views on what is acceptable or not, and that everyone falls somewhere on that continuum.What's right or wrong isn't up to me, though I'd like to request that no one share with others any private information I've given them, and I pledge to do the same.
Namaste
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on April 19, 2007, at 12:55:14
In reply to Re: now wait a minute!, posted by gardenergirl on April 19, 2007, at 9:40:59
You should be careful who you give your personal email to.
Sometimes people email a group of people, innocently giving everyone on the list the email of the others.
If forwarding something you should delete the email of the person you got it from.
If emailing a group, you should send the email to yourself and blind cc the actual group.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.