he broke my cherry
serenebabe
put on serenebabe.net but am now uber-conscious of my audience. My
audience not only includes work people, but my parents.
This is different than the newspaper column (first one in to the editor
next week) where I'll be using a fake name. These are *my* essays and I
want to claim them.
I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this message here, I just
thought maybe some of you had experience with writing personal stuff
that might get read by the wrong people?
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 10/27
$Zero
> That's the first line of the essay I've got in my head that I want to
> put on serenebabe.net but am now uber-conscious of my audience. My
> audience not only includes work people, but my parents.
just put up some spoiler notices and/or other disclaimers and let them
fuck themselves over.
> This is different than the newspaper column (first one in to the editor
> next week) where I'll be using a fake name. These are *my* essays and I
> want to claim them.
sure you do.
> I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this message here, I just
> thought maybe some of you had experience with writing personal stuff
> that might get read by the wrong people?
yeah.
it's called invasion of privacy.
it's the new paradigm in democracy, etc..
-$Zero...
POLL -- What percentage of your beliefs are pure bullshit?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/718886c1e0e14cb1
Towse
> That's the first line of the essay I've got in my head that I want to
> put on serenebabe.net but am now uber-conscious of my audience. My
> audience not only includes work people, but my parents.
>
> This is different than the newspaper column (first one in to the editor
> next week) where I'll be using a fake name. These are *my* essays and I
> want to claim them.
>
> I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this message here, I just
> thought maybe some of you had experience with writing personal stuff
> that might get read by the wrong people?
Think about who you'd rather not read it.
Assume they will.
If you can't face that, don't. Write it in a diary or publish it
somewhere else under a false name.
Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems CEO: "Privacy is dead, get over it."
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> "Privacy is dead, get over it."
and yet, there's nothing quite as satisfying as invading the privacy
of someone who has abused the privacy of others.
in that case, revenge is not only sweet, it's nutritious!
yum.
-$Zero...
_everybody_ knows how unclever you know yourself to be. duh.
you demonstrate it with every single dull-headed scumboy post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a8393b9277275c9b
Bill Penrose
> I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this message here, I just
> thought maybe some of you had experience with writing personal stuff
> that might get read by the wrong people?
It never fails to embarrass.
Not long ago, a friend informed me that he'd googled up a post I made
on MW back in 1997 or 1998 that was, shall we say, intemperate, and
looked even worse out of context.
Anyone not my friend could do the same and use it any way s/he
wanted.
On the other hand, I discovered a scholarly publication with my name
on it that someone had neglected to tell me about, which I've added to
my professional resume.
DB
Sylvia
serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the first line of the essay I've got in my head that I want to
> put on serenebabe.net but am now uber-conscious of my audience. My
> audience not only includes work people, but my parents.
<...>
"I enjoy writing things that disturb people, offend people,
or just makes them react. "
-- Heather/serenebabe FEB 18 2008
"I adore the conversations that come from conflict
and disagreement."
-- Heather/serenebabe JAN 25 2008
--
Sylvia
Towse
> On the other hand, I discovered a scholarly publication with my name
> on it that someone had neglected to tell me about, which I've added to
> my professional resume.
Ah, yes. That.
His nibs found that a paper he'd written back in 1962 had been scanned
and was up on the 'net. Who knew?
Towse
> On Nov 21, 8:50 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>> "Privacy is dead, get over it."
>
> and yet, there's nothing quite as satisfying as invading the privacy
> of someone who has abused the privacy of others.
>
> in that case, revenge is not only sweet, it's nutritious!
>
> yum.
I don't know. I know folks who are really annoyed that things they wrote
are now out there for all to see.
I don't know many (or any) people who have invaded the privacy of others
who are now quaking in their boots that their privacy will now be invaded.
Later downstream on this thread, I mention that his nibs had something
he wrote in 1962 show up in an archive after someone scanned it in, some
something he worked on that turned out to be integral to the design of
SLAC, which is why it'd been scanned in and put on the Web. He found it
whilst ego-surfing as some of us are wont to do.
People sometimes pull up stuff I wrote back when and I'm fine with that.
I've never published anything I worried about being republished. I was
fourth of six and know if there's anything you want to keep secret you
never let anyone know. You certainly don't put it out in print or in public.
We have a guy who was mayor here who was all "published and be damned."
That's really the way to live your life.
Worried about someone publishing your e-mails? Don't be. Dance naked in
the streets. You taught me that, $Zero, if I hadn't lived that way already.
serenebabe
> serenebabe wrote:
>> That's the first line of the essay I've got in my head that I want to
>> put on serenebabe.net but am now uber-conscious of my audience. My
>> audience not only includes work people, but my parents.
>>
>> This is different than the newspaper column (first one in to the editor
>> next week) where I'll be using a fake name. These are *my* essays and I
>> want to claim them.
>>
>> I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this message here, I just
>> thought maybe some of you had experience with writing personal stuff
>> that might get read by the wrong people?
>
> Think about who you'd rather not read it.
>
> Assume they will.
>
> If you can't face that, don't. Write it in a diary or publish it
> somewhere else under a false name.
>
> Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems CEO: "Privacy is dead, get over it."
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing. I'm imagining it over and over
and if I can't imagine being okay with *anyone* reading it, I won't do
it.
That said, the biggest issue would be not wanting my Dad to read it and
he's already on the record with just not wanting anything to do with
that kind of story of my life. So, a simple email to him to avoid it
(easy) might be enough.
Need to consider the rest of the audience, though, before I write it up.
serenebabe
<...>
> People sometimes pull up stuff I wrote back when and I'm fine with
> that. I've never published anything I worried about being republished.
> I was fourth of six and know if there's anything you want to keep
> secret you never let anyone know. You certainly don't put it out in
> print or in public.
I've simply can not imagine someone taking things I've written in the
past and putting them up on the 'net again as an attempt to make me
feel like and/or look like a dumb ass.
serenebabe
Those two statements from earlier this year are still true. Not sure
what you're trying to say?
Towse
> On 2008-11-22 02:13:56 -0500, Towse <se...@towse.com> said:
> <...>
>> People sometimes pull up stuff I wrote back when and I'm fine with
>> that. I've never published anything I worried about being republished.
>> I was fourth of six and know if there's anything you want to keep
>> secret you never let anyone know. You certainly don't put it out in
>> print or in public.
> <...>
>
> I've simply can not imagine someone taking things I've written in the
> past and putting them up on the 'net again as an attempt to make me feel
> like and/or look like a dumb ass.
Some people are weird, but it's not your problem and their actions
reflect more on them than on you.
serenebabe
> serenebabe wrote:
>> On 2008-11-22 02:13:56 -0500, Towse <se...@towse.com> said:
>> <...>
>>> People sometimes pull up stuff I wrote back when and I'm fine with
>>> that. I've never published anything I worried about being republished.
>>> I was fourth of six and know if there's anything you want to keep
>>> secret you never let anyone know. You certainly don't put it out in
>>> print or in public.
>> <...>
>>
>> I've simply can not imagine someone taking things I've written in the
>> past and putting them up on the 'net again as an attempt to make me
>> feel like and/or look like a dumb ass.
>
> Some people are weird, but it's not your problem and their actions
> reflect more on them than on you.
Yeah. I know.
As for the whole anything on the 'net is fair game issue, I do have a
pet peeve. And that is when I send an email to one person, it totally
bugs me when they reply and add people to the message. Even if there's
nothing at all inappropriate, if I write to one person that's who it's
for. This happened recently with a work email I sent to one person, she
copied about five different people her reply (and, therefore, my
message). This institution has a load of politics weighing it down and
who knows who the folks were that she copied. Ugh.
That said, I'm at peace with the notion that anything that's ever been
out there is retrievable and usable.
Towse
> As for the whole anything on the 'net is fair game issue, I do have a
> pet peeve. And that is when I send an email to one person, it totally
> bugs me when they reply and add people to the message. Even if there's
> nothing at all inappropriate, if I write to one person that's who it's
> for. This happened recently with a work email I sent to one person, she
> copied about five different people her reply (and, therefore, my
> message). This institution has a load of politics weighing it down and
> who knows who the folks were that she copied. Ugh.
Yup. Agreed. Most of the time. Same sort of rules apply as apply to
plastering someone's e-mail all over the place, but ... perhaps because
this was work-related, the person didn't see a problem with the message
extending its audience or the person could be trying to cover themselves
with the extra copies on the reply.
Maybe a short note asking who the other people were that she copied on
her reply?
That said, when I get a note from A that I want to send on all or a
piece of to B, I usually check that A's okay with that. Doesn't take
much extra time.
> That said, I'm at peace with the notion that anything that's ever been
> out there is retrievable and usable.
May not be especially usable even if retrievable. :-)
FACT: I was a Republican for years. FACT: I'm no longer a Republican.
These facts are retrievable. Do they matter? Are they usable?
"You once were a Republican. Neener! Gotcha!"
"Huh?" or maybe "The crab cakes were delish." Either answer is an
appropriate response.
serenebabe
> appropriate response.
This makes me think of the "please pass the bean dip" response some
mother's shared with each other when dealing with intrusive in-laws or
friends.
Question:
"You're still nursing your child when s/he's 3/4/5 years old?...
"Your child shares a bed with you and your husband?...
"You don't make your child 'cry it out' to get them to learn to self-soothe?...
...I think that's horrifying. How can you defend that?"
"Yup, that's right! Could you please pass the bean dip?"
gekko
up three very lovely girls, one of whom was named serenebabe
<seren...@gmail.com>, and she said:
> I do have a
> pet peeve. And that is when I send an email to one person, it
> totally bugs me when they reply and add people to the message.
> Even if there's nothing at all inappropriate, if I write to one
> person that's who it's for. This happened recently with a work
> email I sent to one person, she copied about five different people
> her reply (and, therefore, my message). This institution has a
> load of politics weighing it down and who knows who the folks were
> that she copied. Ugh.
>
My philosophy is that work e-mail belongs to the company. If I send
an e-mail to Bob, I expect Bob to forward it, or reply to it adding
people if that will help Bob do his job.
People often forget that company computers and the stuff on them and
company intranets are not private, and do not belong to them. There
can be no expectation of privacy on them.
IMO, shouldn't let it be a peeve when it comes to work mail.
--
gekko
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too
seriously.
Alan Hope
>serenebabe wrote:
>
>> As for the whole anything on the 'net is fair game issue, I do have a
>> pet peeve. And that is when I send an email to one person, it totally
>> bugs me when they reply and add people to the message. Even if there's
>> nothing at all inappropriate, if I write to one person that's who it's
>> for. This happened recently with a work email I sent to one person, she
>> copied about five different people her reply (and, therefore, my
>> message). This institution has a load of politics weighing it down and
>> who knows who the folks were that she copied. Ugh.
>
>Yup. Agreed. Most of the time. Same sort of rules apply as apply to
>plastering someone's e-mail all over the place, but ... perhaps because
>this was work-related, the person didn't see a problem with the message
>extending its audience or the person could be trying to cover themselves
>with the extra copies on the reply.
The problem is when they leave a string of quoted material from the
previous exchange. You may well have expressed yourself differently if
those other people had been involved, but you can't do it
retroactively.
>Maybe a short note asking who the other people were that she copied on
>her reply?
>That said, when I get a note from A that I want to send on all or a
>piece of to B, I usually check that A's okay with that. Doesn't take
>much extra time.
>> That said, I'm at peace with the notion that anything that's ever been
>> out there is retrievable and usable.
>May not be especially usable even if retrievable. :-)
>FACT: I was a Republican for years. FACT: I'm no longer a Republican.
>These facts are retrievable. Do they matter? Are they usable?
>"You once were a Republican. Neener! Gotcha!"
Some people might think so.
>"Huh?" or maybe "The crab cakes were delish." Either answer is an
>appropriate response.
serenebabe
Sure, that makes sense. I guess what peeves me is I didn't use the
"voice for anyone in the organization" when I wrote the note. Not at
ALL a big deal, but a big reminder not to be too chatty.
gekko
Easy to forget.
I make it simpler for myself -- my "voice for anyone in the
organization" is the same as the voice I use in e-mail. Informal, a
bit on the twee side, etc. Or, if I'm cranky, then my voice reflects
that. And when I feel the topic warrants formality and corporate-
speak, well ... 's'who I am. So while there are times I regret
having the wrong attitude at the wrong time, it's something I accept
as a part of me and what the company should just deal with as it
will.
I have been spanked by The Important People<tm>, and I've been lauded
by The Important People<tm>. It all seems to balance out. OTOH, I'm
not CEO yet.
Good thing that's not part of my evil plot, innit. <-- tossed in just
for you.
Random sig for this pass is interesting, yes?
Sylvia
In article <gg8bfp$9i9$3...@news.motzarella.org>, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
<...>
> > On Nov 21, 8:50 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Privacy is dead, get over it."
<...>
> Worried about someone publishing your e-mails? Don't be.
<...>
"See I have e-mails going way back, e-mails from
people who probably wish/ed I threw old e-mails
away, e-mails from the high and mighty and the
low and certifiably insane.
"If ever I decide to write my day-by-day autobiography
of life on the 'net or decide to write a roman a clef
titled Misc.writing Place, I'll have documentation to
draw on like you wouldn't believe."
- Sal towse on the Privacy of Email
in MW, 6/15/2004
"Pat, I don't want them erased. I'm proud of all the words
I have written about you. Each and every one are true and
verified in those same archives and in private e-mail which
you sent to me. I gave it out like candy for about 2 months.
"Want a copy? It's hilarious. You know, it's all about how your
mother killed your sainted daddy and your brothers beat the
heck out of you just for being alive. It also details how you
can't move out from mommy's house because you might lose
your inheritance if you do. [...] I feel for you, man. Sniff....."
-- Ray Haddad on the Privacy of Email
http://tinyurl.com/22eyv4
--
Sylvia <--- The Supreme Ruler of MW
serenebabe
> It's the story of a lovely lady, who, in misc.writing, was bringing
> up three very lovely girls, one of whom was named serenebabe
> <seren...@gmail.com>, and she said:
>
>
>> On 2008-11-22 20:12:11 -0500, gekko
>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> said:
<...>
>>> My philosophy is that work e-mail belongs to the company. If I
>>> send an e-mail to Bob, I expect Bob to forward it, or reply to it
>>> adding people if that will help Bob do his job.
<...>
>> Sure, that makes sense. I guess what peeves me is I didn't use the
>> "voice for anyone in the organization" when I wrote the note. Not
>> at ALL a big deal, but a big reminder not to be too chatty.
>
> Easy to forget.
>
> I make it simpler for myself -- my "voice for anyone in the
> organization" is the same as the voice I use in e-mail. Informal, a
> bit on the twee side, etc. Or, if I'm cranky, then my voice reflects
> that. And when I feel the topic warrants formality and corporate-
> speak, well ... 's'who I am. So while there are times I regret
> having the wrong attitude at the wrong time, it's something I accept
> as a part of me and what the company should just deal with as it
> will.
This whole "social networking" thing has my slamming up against this
issue all the time. It's easier to remember (though I don't always)
about staying relatively professional in email. But with "status
updates" and blog posts and stuff like that, my worlds are colliding.
The thing is I only want one of those worlds, so I may just make some
changes so I can just be all me all the time. Not sure if that's
possible, but it may become a goal.
> Good thing that's not part of my evil plot, innit. <-- tossed in just
> for you.
I lost another millimeter of tooth surface thanks to that.
> Random sig for this pass is interesting, yes?
> "No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too
seriously."
Yes! I didn't realize they were random. So often they totally apply!
Ray Haddad
And don't forget, I still have your threatening e-mail. You know. The
one you threw at my ISP trying to get them to cut me off the web.
Didn't work. Your real-life stalking never does, Sylvia.
--
Ray