![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 17:52:43
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.. » Gabbix2, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 17:01:21
Thanks so much Fallen, it was a really wacky thing to find in my mailbox! I thought it was a complete invasion of privacy. I've never even spoken to MKB off Babble before, She didn't give me the respect to respond to her mail privately or I would have. The whole "plot" scenario is bizarre.
"f course I always support Dinah, I adore Dinah, but she's also the fairest person I know that's why she has my support.Anyway If I say anymore I'll get a re-direct, if I haven't already.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 18:44:43
In reply to BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.., posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 15:12:59
Sorry, Gabbi, that you had to get caught up in that too. :( I figure I've put my neck on the block voluntarily.
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 18:48:56
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.. » Gabbix2, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 17:01:21
Well, I can see myself being a sugar mama, but Dr. Bob wouldn't be the recipient of my largesse. :P
My therapist has indicated a willingness to be a private therapist should I win the lottery. lol.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 18:53:49
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.. » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 18:44:43
Oh No problem Dinah, in a way I do too, (put my neck on the block) I am a little opioninated : )
I do find it amusing though, that she thinks there was a time when she managed to make *you*
look bad, I think any of those attempts had a nasty reverse effect
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 18:59:16
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.. » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 18:53:49
brilliantly turned the situation into a way to bring Karen Kay back!
Posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 19:02:28
In reply to Besides Dinah , Tofu Emmy on Social..., posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 18:59:16
How exciting! Where? Where? I've gotten so behind on Social that there's just an unnerving sea of yellow unread posts.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 13, 2005, at 19:56:59
In reply to BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.., posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 15:12:59
Funny, now why do I always assume it's a guy?
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 20:16:37
In reply to Wow, really?, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 19:02:28
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050106/msgs/441590.html
Oh it's a joke really, but it was such an unexpected spin on the whole situation, (hat's off to Emmy's imagination) It sure made me laugh, it's worth a look.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 23:46:19
In reply to BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.., posted by Gabbix2 on January 13, 2005, at 15:12:59
> I just thought I'd offer this letter as a warning...
I'm sorry about what happened, but at the same time, my preference is for people (1) not to post babblemail they receive without the sender's permission and (2) not to post any communications at all from people who are blocked. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 1:11:17
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB » Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 23:46:19
I can't really apologize except for the fact that it upset you, because I'm not sorry I did it. I've never made public anyone's private communication with me before though, so I'm sure
it won't happen again.
Posted by Snoozin on January 14, 2005, at 13:33:54
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 1:11:17
Is an unsolicited e-mail really *private?* Is there a reasonable expectation that it won't be shared publicly? It's like SPAM, isn't it?
Just curious. If I cold-e-mailed someone, I would never think I had any right to privacy in that type of correspondence.
Posted by All Done on January 14, 2005, at 14:32:20
In reply to Is that e-mail really private?, posted by Snoozin on January 14, 2005, at 13:33:54
> If I cold-e-mailed someone, I would never think I had any right to privacy in that type of correspondence.
Snoozin,
My very first e-mail here was to Dinah and I'm very grateful that she thought I had a right to privacy in that situation even though she had never heard from me via e-mail before and it was unsolicited.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with posting MKB's e-mail here. The circumstances and content of my e-mail to Dinah and hers to Gabbi were greatly different. I just hope my privacy would be respected regardless of whether the e-mail was solicited or unsolicited provided, of course, the e-mail I sent was respectful of the recipient. I don't want to see any newbies discouraged from babblemailing any of the "old timers" because they are afraid of a lack of privacy.
Am I making sense?
Laurie
Posted by Snoozin on January 14, 2005, at 15:07:01
In reply to Re: Is that e-mail really private? » Snoozin, posted by All Done on January 14, 2005, at 14:32:20
> Snoozin,
>
> My very first e-mail here was to Dinah and I'm very grateful that she thought I had a right to privacy in that situation even though she had never heard from me via e-mail before and it was unsolicited.
<<I totally agree with what you are saying. I think that with polite correspondence, it is the *polite* thing to keep things private.To avoid any ambiguity, I usually ask people, both verbally and in writing, to please not tell anyone, and therefore make my need for privacy clear.
But when someone sends an e-mail out of the blue that is inflamatory, or accusatory, or in any way negative, I think there is no right to privacy.
>>I just hope my privacy would be respected regardless of whether the e-mail was solicited or unsolicited provided.
<<I think that privacy is a matter of respect, so the fact you were respectful to Dinah, I'm sure she automatically was respectful back. (Dinah's respectful all the time anyway). :-) But when a person starts a correspondence off in a disrespectful tone, then I don't think there can be an expectation of privacy. It's like they gave up that right, or privilege, or expectation -- whatever you want to call it -- when they went outside the bounds of propriety. This of course is only my opinion.But of course, in general, I think you have a right to privacy which should be respected.
:-)
Susan
Posted by alexandra_k on January 14, 2005, at 15:21:07
In reply to Re: Is that e-mail really private? » All Done, posted by Snoozin on January 14, 2005, at 15:07:01
I would treat babblemail as private unless it was (in my opinion) nasty or concerning. If I thought it was either of those I would pass it on to Dr B to deal with it.
But in general I figure it is private correspondance.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:21:45
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB » Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 23:46:19
I don't see the logic here Dr. Bob and this is why.
A while ago I recieved an e-mail which I wanted to use to validate someone's complaint that a poster was being threateing. You would not allow me to describe the e-mail in any negative way. I was actually blocked for labelling it.
You had suggested that I was permitted to say "It shocked and horrified me"
Well I would not do that. Why? Because by saying that it would have given the sender the Power of knowing that they had succeeded in their attempt to cause me discomfort. And in truth it didn't shock or horrify me, I saw it simply as an attempt to do so.So in order to warn anyone of a possible "situation" with a poster, I would assume the only thing to do would to avoid judging the e-mail and post the contents and let others come to their own conclusion. Anyone who sends an e-mail with "questionable" contents is not going to give permission to share it. And in this case, I was not given the opportunity to respond to the sender personally, or I would have done so.
With all the talk of support and safety on the board I really don't agree with having to hide these incidents from other posters. And if something serious happened again I'm afraid I would have to let fellow babblers know about it, it is my responsibility.To anyone reading I apologize for the euphemisms such as "questionable" and "situation" of course it would have to be something I took very seriously, I do believe that babblemail is private. But as Susan said, sometimes it's tantamount to spam.
Dr. Bob I do very much appreciate the fact that you did not block me when you could have.
It must be all those donations I keep sending you. : )
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:32:31
In reply to Re: Is that e-mail really private?, posted by alexandra_k on January 14, 2005, at 15:21:07
You know, I do believe Babble Mail is private, and even if I got mail I thought was stupid, or didn't like I most certainly would post it.
I did forward this particular letter to Dr. Bob, however I know that he doesn't notify babblers about these things. When a blocked poster purposely changes their name though, in order to send mail which is falsely accusing, I think they do give up certain babble rights, and I think other posters have a right to be aware of what is going on.
In this instance I thought I was taking a risk too, what I did could just as easily have made me look bad as the sender of the mail, especially if people thought the contents were really no big deal, or if what I did was unethical.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 14, 2005, at 19:16:46
In reply to Re: Is that e-mail really private? All Done » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:32:31
Yeah. I guess I just would have fowarded it to Dr B and left it at that. That is just what I would have done though...
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 19:49:57
In reply to Re: Is that e-mail really private? All Done » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on January 14, 2005, at 19:16:46
> Yeah. I guess I just would have fowarded it to Dr B and left it at that. That is just what I would have done though...
>And you know, had I had more sleep and less P.M.S that may have been where I had left it too.. : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:32:52
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:21:45
> I think that privacy is a matter of respect, so the fact you were respectful to Dinah, I'm sure she automatically was respectful back... But when a person starts a correspondence off in a disrespectful tone, then I don't think there can be an expectation of privacy. It's like they gave up that right, or privilege, or expectation -- whatever you want to call it -- when they went outside the bounds of propriety. This of course is only my opinion.
>
> SnoozinBut two wrongs don't make a right...
----
> So in order to warn anyone of a possible "situation" with a poster, I would assume the only thing to do would to avoid judging the e-mail and post the contents and let others come to their own conclusion.
> With all the talk of support and safety on the board I really don't agree with having to hide these incidents from other posters.
>
> Gabbix2It's great to look out for each other, I just think it would've been nice if there had been another way...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2005, at 5:30:45
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 4:32:52
Would it have been ok to say "I received a babblemail in which this poster admits to being a blocked poster. I have forwarded it to Dr. Bob and expect that he will deal with it." as a way to let people know what was going on since the poster was also posting on the board. Would it have been ok to say *which* blocked poster? If the information could be shared without copying the body of the post, would that be ok?
I was away that day, and you clearly weren't available. It appears that Babble does better under those circumstances with more information so that people feel more comfortable waiting and letting you deal with it. I think that's what Gabbi was trying to do, because I'm sure Gabbi's seen the dynamics here as well as I have.
Posted by crushedout on January 15, 2005, at 9:12:22
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB.. AKA wronged.. » Fallen4MyT, posted by Dinah on January 13, 2005, at 18:48:56
You did just get a raise, Dinah!mmmm sugarmama (in a homer simpson voice).
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 13:36:31
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2005, at 5:30:45
> Would it have been ok to say "I received a babblemail in which this poster admits to being a blocked poster. I have forwarded it to Dr. Bob and expect that he will deal with it." as a way to let people know what was going on since the poster was also posting on the board. Would it have been ok to say *which* blocked poster? If the information could be shared without copying the body of the post, would that be ok?
That's definitely better! As far as saying which blocked poster, I don't know, I do ask in the FAQ that people not post information that identifies others without their permission...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2005, at 19:05:35
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 13:36:31
> As far as saying which blocked poster, I don't know, I do ask in the FAQ that people not post information that identifies others without their permission...
>
> BobMy understanding was that that meant that you weren't to say something like "Superman is really Clark Kent residing in Metropolis with a telephone number of 555-5555", not "Superman is currently posting as Catwoman".
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 19:22:19
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB, posted by Dinah on January 15, 2005, at 19:05:35
> > I don't know, I do ask in the FAQ that people not post information that identifies others without their permission...
>
> My understanding was that that meant that you weren't to say something like "Superman is really Clark Kent residing in Metropolis with a telephone number of 555-5555", not "Superman is currently posting as Catwoman".You think the latter should be OK?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 15, 2005, at 19:28:29
In reply to Re: BabbleMail from MKB, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2005, at 19:22:19
How about
>superman told me he is currently posting as catwoman.
I don't see what is wrong with that.
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.