![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:10:45
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 10:09:07
> I formally request an exception to this very fine rule for asking sensitive questions about oneself... Perhaps the exception could be incorporated as:
>
> "I currently post under another name on this board, but due to the sensitive nature of this question, I would prefer not to have my screen name associated with it. I will post under this name only for the purposes of having this specific question answered."The rule just has to do with posting under different names *at the same time*. So even without an exception someone could change their name to ask a question and then change it back after that thread?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
In reply to Re: posting under different names at the same time, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:10:45
Except that it would be pretty obvious when say, Olaf posted on Admin that he was posting under a new name, asked an embarassing question, and then Dinah posted on Admin that she was posting under a new (old) name.
And if you lifted the requirement to post that you were changing names, it would open the door to less benign situations involving name changes for one thread. :)
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:19:44
In reply to Bravo, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
I didn't remember any, but forgot to search. My son's reading "A Series of Unfortunate Events". :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
In reply to Bravo, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
> it would be pretty obvious when say, Olaf posted on Admin that he was posting under a new name, asked an embarassing question, and then Dinah posted on Admin that she was posting under a new (old) name.
What if, afterwards, Olaf posted again? That he was returning to his old name?
Bob
Posted by cubic_me on March 28, 2005, at 13:14:53
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
I like the system Dinah proposed, where people could be 'anon 1, 2, 3, etc' or similar.
Posted by KaraS on March 29, 2005, at 1:48:34
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2005, at 1:51:00
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
Posted by Spoc on March 29, 2005, at 6:58:00
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
Ok, the answer to this will probably dawn on me immediately after I post and I'll feel stoopid, but: if the system "releases"/eradicates a name as soon as someone actually abandons it by registering with a new one, how do people end up posting under two names at once? (Maybe there is a "delete prior name" option in the process that I'm unaware of...)
I'm figuring the system must release the old name, and right away, if a person with this confidentiality objective must then formally re-register with it to get it back. If the name is free in between, I guess the person also risks that someone else will take it while they have the bag on their head. ;-) (Probably by coincidence, but if two and two were put together deviously by someone, potentially intentionally...)
Ok, I probably should have just gotten more sleep, may have made no sense at all!
Posted by KaraS on March 29, 2005, at 13:50:48
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
> Yeah. But then if we can post under another name then after a bit of time that would be another part of us...
>
> They would start out feeling anonymous, but over time they wouldn't feel anonymous anymore.
>
> More and more parts of us.
>
> I think that that is why we aren't supposed to post under more than one name.
>
> Well. That and the problem of responsibility / accountability I guess. If someone posts something objectionable then we would want all of their posting names to be blocked.
>
> And a poster could have a conversation with their selves...
>
> It would be a way around the 3 post rule...
Hi Alex,Please ignore my previous post. I must have checked off the "nm" box by mistake. I meant to agree with you that it could get quite complicated when posting under different names. I think it might work though if it's quite controlled and is only used in the case that Dinah mentions.
Kara
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:11:37
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 29, 2005, at 6:58:00
Posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 11:45:34
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:11:37
>The rule just has to do with posting under different names *at the same time*. So even without an exception someone could change their name to ask a question and then change it back after that thread?
Bob
======
A few things are still escaping me about all this... I'll mention them after I affirm what my understanding is now, of what you're saying:I gather that it is indeed ok to hold and use two names, as long as an announcement of a switch is made on Admin in between use, under one of the names (with the option not to identify/reveal the link between names in the announcement). I guess that confused me because up until now, I had thought the rule was against *possessing* two names at any given time, linked to the same IP address and/or email period.
And in regard to your quote above, I also take it that when you say "change it back," you mean just through the Admin announcement, not literally, through re-registering (since if nothing else, the name would still show as taken). I guess I had thought re-registering was always mentioned as required, any time someone asks how to change their name. Leading me to believe each person could only have one name.
But here's where I get confused (I think there are even more things that confuse me about this, but these are the ones coming to mind at the moment): You state that "even without an exception" the anonymity objective is possible, as the rule is only against using two names "*at the same time.*" But if no exception was needed at all, why couldn't it be worked out that Phillipa and her husband could have separate names in use from the same computer?
Also, if no exception of any type was needed, and the rule is literally only against "at the same time," that would mean that people can have two names in use for any purpose, as long as they announce in between. So, that will be ok?
And, if taken literally, it seems like that would mean the number of names one person can have isn't even limited to two, if the rule is only against "at the same time."
Hmmmm.... I agree that this does sound like it would be very hard to keep track of. Admin could also end up peppered with announcements of switching between names within minutes of each other, with the associated names never being known, so the person really could have two or more identities going on the board...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 30, 2005, at 12:42:16
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 11:45:34
I read it as being that if a person (through the registration process) changes their name, the old one doesn't get recycled.
So if you modify your name, and not create a new alter ego, you couldn't use both at the same time.
Although that does get a bit confusing on one bit. If you still 'own' the name, how does the system know it is really you reclaiming it. Password?
Good to see your verbal sparring skills back here, Spoc(no k)
Posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 14:01:05
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names » Spoc, posted by AuntieMel on March 30, 2005, at 12:42:16
... that's me not quite getting it... And what about observations 2 through 82? ;-) Guess it doesn't help that I was mixing technical/system questions with rules/feasibility questions!
> I read it as being that if a person (through the registration process) changes their name, the old one doesn't get recycled.
------
Ok, with you so far, that as indicated above by Dr. Bob, indeed the old name doesn't ever return to availability...
----------
> So if you modify your name, and not create a new alter ego, you couldn't use both at the same time.-------
Losing the trail here.... Does that mean that one can modify a name without doing a new registration? I didn't think that was possible, I thought people were always told they had to re-register to make any change at all...-------
> Good to see your verbal sparring skills back here, Spoc(no k)--------
Yeah, and I had to pick this! Perchance I made little sense in how I phrased my questions in my other post, but I hope somehow Dr. Bob follows them and addresses each one. Because I'm in that place where one feels maddeningly sure something, somehow, doesn't make sense; but it's hard to put one's finger on it or on all of it... Which is often followed by someone pointing out something stupefyingly obvious to one, resulting in one being like.... WHOOOOOPSIE!! <feverish blush>And thanks for the back-welcome, but I think I should limit myself to this one thread forever! So it better be a fulfilling one, that is somehow permitted to meander into any area of my life and opinions that I want it to! ;^)
P.S., awwww, she remembered, the "no k!" Yes, this confounded, misleading, and cache-less name. If I do stick around beyond this week or so it IS changing this time! (Interpretation for those who don't know me: I am NOT a Trekie, nor a male! Sorry to anyone I just let down. ;)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 22:44:41
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 11:45:34
> I gather that it is indeed ok to hold and use two names, as long as an announcement of a switch is made on Admin in between use, under one of the names
I guess so, currently, at least.
> I also take it that when you say "change it back," you mean just through the Admin announcement
Right.
> if no exception was needed at all, why couldn't it be worked out that Phillipa and her husband could have separate names in use from the same computer?
That's two people, not one person, but are you suggesting that they could they just make an announcement each time?
> that would mean that people can have two names in use for any purpose, as long as they announce in between. So, that will be ok?
I guess so, currently, at least.
> that would mean the number of names one person can have isn't even limited to two
I guess so, currently, at least.
> Admin could also end up peppered with announcements of switching between names
I guess so, currently, at least.
Do you think there should be a rule (in general) against switching back and forth?
Bob
Posted by Spoc on March 31, 2005, at 0:43:07
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 22:44:41
> > if no exception was needed at all, why couldn't it be worked out that Phillipa and her husband could have separate names in use from the same computer?
>
> That's two people, not one person, but are you suggesting that they could they just make an announcement each time?
-----
Yes; I had been wondering why, if two names being linked to the same computer has indeed always been a little-known "legal" possibility, it didn't come up when she/they were going to bat for being able to have their own names.
----
> Do you think there should be a rule (in general) against switching back and forth?
>
> Bob
----
It's probably hard for people to picture very many current Babblers abusing things somehow, but realistically it seems like over time, things could get hairy... When it becomes more known that there is this new loophole to play with.BUT, on the other hand, I guess anyone seen posting on Admin frequently to announce switches, even if not revealing both names at once, would in a way be "alerting" people to the possibility that he/she in fact has more than one identity going, so "buyer beware" in the future... But then again, not everyone reads Admin...
Would there be a system to reconcile whether people really *were* announcing the switch each time, or might that requirement in effect end up falling by the wayside or being spottily checked?
Myself, I do perfectly understand the anonymity objective though, it does seem like it would be nice for people to have a way to do that.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 31, 2005, at 2:49:20
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 22:44:41
I'd feel safer if we couldn't do that.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 31, 2005, at 2:50:14
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by alexandra_k on March 31, 2005, at 2:49:20
... all the time.
Though I can understand why someone might want to do that for a specific question.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 31, 2005, at 2:53:07
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 22:44:41
PS.
If you don't know that the poster has two (or more) names that they alternate between then you wouldn't be able to block all the posters posting names to enforce a block.
If you do know this then you could block the both of them.
But you would need to know to be able to do this.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2005, at 10:24:56
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by alexandra_k on March 31, 2005, at 2:53:07
> I had been wondering why, if two names being linked to the same computer has indeed always been a little-known "legal" possibility, it didn't come up
I wouldn't say it's always been a possibility, we'd never discussed it before...
> Would there be a system to reconcile whether people really *were* announcing the switch each time, or might that requirement in effect end up falling by the wayside or being spottily checked?
>
> SpocThe checking system isn't automatic, so people do slip through -- as we've seen...
> you would need to know to be able to do this.
>
> alexandra_kThe checking system isn't perfect, but I think I probably would be able to find out...
Bob
Posted by Spoc on March 31, 2005, at 13:14:19
In reply to Re: switching between names, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2005, at 10:24:56
> > I had been wondering why, if two names being linked to the same computer has indeed always been a little-known "legal" possibility, it didn't come up
>
> I wouldn't say it's always been a possibility, we'd never discussed it before...
But... I was being literal I guess, based on...>The rule just has to do with posting under different names *at the same time*. So even without an exception someone could change their name to ask a question and then change it back after that thread?
Posted by Atticus on March 31, 2005, at 16:09:10
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
Well, clearly, mate, under such apocalyptic circumstances, the world would end, right?
;) Atticus
Posted by Spoc on March 31, 2005, at 19:02:14
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Atticus on March 31, 2005, at 16:09:10
> Well, clearly, mate, under such apocalyptic circumstances, the world would end, right?
> ;) AtticusHmmm, guess I qualify as a 'mate' here. Personally, I don't care either way, have no stake or anticipated stake in it at all. Just enjoy and am attracted to the philosophical, theoretical, and "what if" kinds of things in life. And am glad to add thoughts, for anyone who may be "invested" in a matter.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 31, 2005, at 19:05:00
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Atticus on March 31, 2005, at 16:09:10
welcome back dear traveler.
we have missed you way too much.
Ja*
Posted by alexandra_k on April 6, 2005, at 1:06:08
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Atticus on March 31, 2005, at 16:09:10
I missed that post!
Hello!
Welcome back!
You are back, right???
Please come back to writing.
We have missed you.
Posted by sunny10 on April 6, 2005, at 14:37:44
In reply to Re: switching between names » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 31, 2005, at 13:14:19
we seem to be accepting and extending the idea of the rest of society that talking about our feelings or our health (or anything else) is "bad" and thus needs to be hidden, in my opinion. I thought the general consensus on the boards is that we who suffer from mental health issues are tired of being treated like pariahs and that we were here to avoid stigma like that.
If I didn't trust my fellow babblers to not criticize me in general, I wouldn't need a second name to write anything; I wouldn't be here at all... As I tend to disassociate myself a bit in times of stress and depression, getting a second name to have my questions answered would feel like a step in the wrong direction, FOR ME.
That's my opinion.
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.