![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 56. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by PhytoEstrogen on April 17, 2007, at 8:32:45
I think I'm strong enough to deal with Babblemess now.
did I miss anything?
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 17, 2007, at 8:35:22
In reply to LlurpsieNoodle's back, posted by PhytoEstrogen on April 17, 2007, at 8:32:45
> I think I'm strong enough to deal with Babblemess now.
>
> did I miss anything?Funny. I thought it was about time for the Noodle to return as well
Posted by scratchpad on April 17, 2007, at 8:39:31
In reply to Re: LlurpsieNoodle's back » PhytoEstrogen, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 17, 2007, at 8:35:22
Posted by zazenduckie on April 17, 2007, at 9:01:38
In reply to LlurpsieNoodle's back, posted by PhytoEstrogen on April 17, 2007, at 8:32:45
Posted by one woman cine on April 17, 2007, at 11:22:35
In reply to LlurpsieNoodle's back, posted by PhytoEstrogen on April 17, 2007, at 8:32:45
Posted by karen_kay on April 17, 2007, at 12:16:45
In reply to one posting name per poster? (nm), posted by one woman cine on April 17, 2007, at 11:22:35
that's one hell of a welcome!
playing deputy, are we? better shine that star!
Posted by one woman cine on April 17, 2007, at 12:28:00
In reply to wowsa! » one woman cine, posted by karen_kay on April 17, 2007, at 12:16:45
Karen, if I didn't know better - I'd be seriously offended by your post
however - babble is confusing enough & I don't think there's anything wrong in asking for clarification. I have my reasons. What's yours?
Posted by karen_kay on April 17, 2007, at 13:30:53
In reply to re:, posted by one woman cine on April 17, 2007, at 12:28:00
i must say i will do that.
while attempting to be supportive to a poster, i found myself being unsupportive to another.
you have the right to be offended. i wasn't thinking. i must honestly say that i am sorry.
then again, i didn't take it to be a question, more an accusation. but, that's jsut me. and i'm known to assume things.
kk can be rude
and she can be shrewd
and she's been known
to get more than nudeperhaps she should think
and not cause a big stink
and perhaps you will see
she's sending a wink?i was just thinking that perhaps it would be in the best interest of a deputy to mention the name thingie? maybe, maybe not. not really my business anyway, but i do like to stick my perfect nose in where it doesn't belong anyway.
take care owc. and i hope you weren't seriously offended (mildly either. my intention wasn't to offend, perhaps upset, but intentions don't really matter anyway, do they... see, my whole meaning gets lost anyway with useless words)
i do wish you well. i hope you don't sense any sarcasm, negativeness, or anything but sincerity in that. sorry, i need my meds adjusted REALLY BAD!
Posted by scratchpad on April 17, 2007, at 14:46:32
In reply to one posting name per poster? (nm), posted by one woman cine on April 17, 2007, at 11:22:35
I think that announcing the resumption of a previous posting name meets the requirements of using one posting name at a time.
That is, first there was LlurpsieNoodle
then a name change announcement here on Admin to PhytoEstrogen
and now a return to LlurpsieNoodle, announced on this thread.Is this what you're referring to?
Scratchpad
-formerly ClearSkies, PartlyCloudy, and initially Rainyday.
Posted by zazenduckie on April 17, 2007, at 14:57:36
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » one woman cine, posted by scratchpad on April 17, 2007, at 14:46:32
Jus because you're YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by karen_kay on April 17, 2007, at 15:02:32
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » one woman cine, posted by scratchpad on April 17, 2007, at 14:46:32
yeah, that's more what i meant to say.....
wish i was as well spoken as you! (and polite as well!)
you're pretty swell, sexie pie!
Posted by scratchpad on April 17, 2007, at 19:39:25
In reply to ((((((((rainyday))))))) » scratchpad, posted by zazenduckie on April 17, 2007, at 14:57:36
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 17, 2007, at 19:45:55
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » scratchpad, posted by karen_kay on April 17, 2007, at 15:02:32
Point well taken, one woman cine
I try my best to take the rules around here seriously. Rules are here to make us safe, or at least feel safer.
You all may notice that there has been relatively little oversight by our moderator here lately.
An unfortunate incident made me feel that I needed to change my posting name to protect myself.
And I waited. and waited. and waited. for some action to be taken in this particular situation which made me feel unsafe. Let's just say that Babble without oversight is not a very safe babble.
I think I have the tools to protect myself however. I'm unfortunately unable to tell you all of the unfortunate incident. To tell you would be uncivil. Not to take action about it is also uncivil, in my opinion. I'm pretty close to doing some vigilante justice, as I feel I have been very patient on this matter.
I warn you all to be very careful because babble is unsafe without the presence of a certain Dr. Bob. Deputies have some powers. But not all powers. They have helped me in the ways in which they could help me, but only Dr. Bob has access to certain functions that keep babble humming and ticking with babble support. Those same channels can be usurped for babble unsupport, and without Dr. Bob, Llurpsienoodle was left in a distinctly unsupported position.
I'm sorry if my name change was done improperly. I don't like to set a poor example. However, I think it pales in comparison to the situation which caused me to think that I needed to take on a new identity in the first place. new identities are difficult to create, especially with all the other sh*t I've got going on right now.
For instance my cat, the one I stole from PhytoEstrogen has stinky breath. last I checked that was not uncivil (for a cat)
peace to you all
-Ll
Posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 7:35:04
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster?, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on April 17, 2007, at 19:45:55
Thank you so much for clearing that up!
I was worried because I initially thought you were using 2 names simultaneously & it was confusing as all get out. Babble is confusing at times & I have some serious trouble keeping track.
& on another note, I totally empathize with your not feeling safe - I also share that with you and have some extremely unfortunate incidents occur as well. I hasten to add that Dr. Bob does not necessarily mitigate this, it is just the illusion of safety that he provides.
Lack of administration is one thing; & I agree it compounds already very hairy situations. I think a larger problem is the myth of a private safe haven, free of harrassment. I say this from my real life experiences that have involved this forum.
Having said that, I do realize that everyone is doing their best, in the best way they know how. I wish everyone could be safe on babble.
Posted by Phillipa on April 18, 2007, at 12:17:47
In reply to Re: one posting name per poster? » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by one woman cine on April 18, 2007, at 7:35:04
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
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.
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.