![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 27, 2004, at 18:23:39
In reply to one computer per user?, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 18:14:31
I cannot honestly tell you on what Dr Bob does but we did it by one puter per...because we were a private site one would ONLY find us by google or word or mouth so we only let in those we knew well...and one gal started to stalk the dude I co-owned the site with so we booted her...she and some friend of hers were the only two we ever booted not for what they said ...we HAD no rules on words and all but cause of the stalking and stuff
> I find that strange.
> Maybe it is just the software and it is hard to change...
> But seems silly for me (at least).
> What if someone else from my uni decided to use the same computer in the library as me? Will that result in a blocking?
>
> I use fairly much a different computer each time I come here.
>
> It is a pain about all the new indicators though, thats why I miss new posts sometimes...
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 18:58:41
In reply to Aren't you encouraging..., posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 18:22:56
> Aren't you encouraging...
> merging of different people instead of allowing them to retain their (asked for) independance?
>
> Why can't two people posting from the same computer have two different posting identities?
>
> I thought it was one person posting under different names that was the problem.This is another online identity issue. Different people "merging" (sharing a computer) has always been possible. Is there really any way for me to tell?
Maybe there should be a new rule about this, analogous to the changing-your-name rule? If people are going to share a computer, they should at least post something here?
Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 27, 2004, at 19:12:50
In reply to Re: sharing a computer, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 18:58:41
Dr Bob, I would most likely do what you are doing its a hard call as you have an easy to find site...and will let anyone in. To be honest say 10 years ago when I was new to AOL I would have been a troll on here and played under a LOT of names. Good thing I grew up...
I CAN see the side of... what if you really DO have two people in a house who use the puter ????but ...? how can one bypass that ? I am glad I am not you.
I had a very private site..If someone googled our name and it was unlikely...it was an odd name...all they would have seen was the rules board and log on...then we caught their numbers and knew who's computer it came from then we approved or disapproved based on that. That girl we kicked out tried to sign in under different names and passwords so it was for US a safe system. Again we had a very select group and didn't want anyone we didn't know in.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 19:43:13
In reply to Re: sharing a computer, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 18:58:41
> Different people "merging" (sharing a computer) has always been possible. Is there really any way for me to tell?
Nope, I guess not.
> Maybe there should be a new rule about this, analogous to the changing-your-name rule? If people are going to share a computer, they should at least post something here?
That sounds like a good idea.
Posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 20:13:44
In reply to Re: sharing a computer » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 19:43:13
I beleive this sharing name for posting could result in MPD look-a-like. I have enough problems without that label being attached. 2 names-one e-mail account could be misused. If the goal is to have the controls to block uncivil and harmful postings, then seperate e-mail accounts would allow fair disciplinary action without punishing the other 'puter user in the house.Gnepig(not Phillipa)
Posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 20:25:23
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter-not a name, posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 20:13:44
Hey, Wait a minute! I was taking a shower! I did not post that last message! What if it said something that was uncivil? I would be punished! When I worked as an Rn it was Taboo to share your computer number cause if another nurse ordered the wrong thing from the Lab lets say, you were respnsible. Seriously Dr. Bob, I believe in Blocking for uncivil responses, but there has to be a way to solve this very real problem. Unless you want to donate another computer. {Just Joking!} As Always the Real Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 20:28:15
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter-not a name, posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 20:25:23
You guys can't even have an online discussion without breaking the three post rule!
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 21:49:24
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter-not a name, posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 20:25:23
> 2 names-one e-mail account could be misused... seperate e-mail accounts would allow fair disciplinary action without punishing the other 'puter user in the house.
Separate email accounts don't guarantee separate people...
> I did not post that last message! What if it said something that was uncivil? I would be punished!
Well, if a name were to be blocked, it would be blocked for whoever was using it, yes...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:55:49
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 21:49:24
> Separate email accounts don't guarantee separate people...
Neither do seperate computers.
Sorry to kind of b*tt in here, but isn't the seperate email option kind of the best you've got?Maybe it is a toss up between under and over inclusion. I guess that I don't personally like the idea of two posters to one posting name. That could be every bit as unhealthy as one poster to two posting names.
Posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 21:59:55
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 21:49:24
Dr. Bob; You mean the person who signs the Post would be blocked, right? Phillipa PS But how could you block gnepig if it was posted under my name, now I'm confused.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 22:10:49
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2004, at 21:59:55
I think he is still thinking that you should continue posting under the same posting name...
In that case a block for one would be a block for the other.
If you were allowed seperate posting names then that wouldn't be an issue.
Dr B, you said about letting peoples do this if they tell everyone about it. Phillipa / Gnepig have told everyone about it. Why not let them post under different names with different email addressess and see how it goes?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 22:21:15
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 22:10:49
> I think he is still thinking that you should continue posting under the same posting name...
>
> In that case a block for one would be a block for the other.Right, sorry I wasn't more clear before...
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2004, at 0:10:56
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2004, at 22:21:15
Dr. Bob, I understand perfectly well that as things are now, a block for one would be a block for all (both of us). The question I have is that are we [all posters including yourself] discussing viable options that would be flexible and less severe to the affected innocent party or are you saying that the decision stands as is and is no longer a topic for discussion? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just a little thick sometimes. Sincerely, Gnepig, Gnepig2, not Phillipa
Posted by cubic_me on December 28, 2004, at 9:49:40
In reply to Re: sharing a 'puter and a name » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on December 28, 2004, at 0:10:56
Like alexandre_k I use many computers, I use different internet connections all over the country - if I was blocked I'm presuming it would be easy for me to set up a new posing name on a different computer as if I was a completely different person.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 14:02:38
In reply to multiple computers, posted by cubic_me on December 28, 2004, at 9:49:40
Posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 13:31:39
In reply to multiple computers, posted by cubic_me on December 28, 2004, at 9:49:40
Posted by cubic_me on January 1, 2005, at 16:59:29
In reply to or even if you weren't blocked (nm) » cubic_me, posted by Toph on December 31, 2004, at 13:31:39
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 17:07:39
In reply to Now you are giving me ideas!! (nm) » Toph, posted by cubic_me on January 1, 2005, at 16:59:29
How do we know that Dr B is Dr Robert Hsuing, as opposed to, say, Dr Robert Hsuing and registrars, or whatever?
How do we know that they aren't rostered on different 'shifts' and that part of their homework is to catch up with the boards and especially catch up with 'Dr Bob's' deliberations so as to ensure consistency?
Maybe Dr Bob is the name of a conglomeration of peoples... Just a thought.
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 8:00:21
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!!, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 17:07:39
One others have shared.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/400811.html
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 16:51:21
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 8:00:21
ooooh, thanks for the link, I must have missed that thread.
Now I am not suggesting that Dr Robert Hsuing is posting under multiple posting names (which clearly is not allowed). Rather, my suggestion is that there may be more to Dr Bob than Dr Robert Hsuing (as there is nothing at all to prevent multiple people posting under the same posting name).
Note that the first is not allowed by the rules of the site, whereas the second seems to be perfectly acceptable...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 17:50:19
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 8:00:21
Hey Toph, you ever heard of Berkeley? He maintained that the whole universe is simply an idea in the mind of god. That is where we get 'to be is to be perceived' from. So there isn't any matter, anything physical - just ideas. This comes out in "Sophies World" which is (arguably) a very brilliant book :-)
To consider that you are the only person in the world that exists (and that everyone else is just an idea in your mind) is called Solipsism. It is a very lonely position, and one that is talked about a lot though nobody is sure if anyone has held it for long. I did my best. Think I managed maybe 6 months in hospital.
I think most thoughts have been thought before...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 17:52:24
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!! » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 17:50:19
...try this one
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 19:31:01
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!! » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 17:50:19
> Hey Toph, you ever heard of Berkeley? He maintained that the whole universe is simply an idea in the mind of god. That is where we get 'to be is to be perceived' from. So there isn't any matter, anything physical - just ideas. This comes out in "Sophies World" which is (arguably) a very brilliant book :-)
>
> To consider that you are the only person in the world that exists (and that everyone else is just an idea in your mind) is called Solipsism. It is a very lonely position, and one that is talked about a lot though nobody is sure if anyone has held it for long. I did my best. Think I managed maybe 6 months in hospital.
>
Actually, alexandra, the notion of me being alone was terrifying. It happened a couple times when my manic episodes were peaking and I was about to be carted off. Now I know the name - Solipsism. Kind of a catchy name, hell of a lot better than totally freaked out of my mind. Seriously, psychotic mania for me is dominated by grandiose thoughts of fearlessness, omnipotence and ideas of reference (mainly radio and TV). To feel any fear in this state is like some primitive abandonment or something. You'll probably think I'm nuts or something but I have risidual grandiose thinking when stabilized, like when I try to touch all my elderly clients on the shoulder or hand as if some healing force is shared between us.
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 22:07:30
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!!, posted by Toph on January 2, 2005, at 19:31:01
There is also 'depersonalisation' and 'derealisation'. Depersonalisation seems to have a lot to do with solipsism and derealisation seems to have a lot to do with Berkeley...
Posted by Toph on January 3, 2005, at 9:40:12
In reply to Re: Now you are giving me ideas!! » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2005, at 22:07:30
If by Berkeley, you mean George, and not the school or my first fishing rod, I don't think his immaterialist notions would resonate with me when manic because I believe that matter exists but has no intrinsic value - at least that would account for all the things I destroyed in that condition.
-Toph
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.