We're all part of some social experiment of yours. We know already.

i hope you an carrottop have chosen a good obgyn...

Waiting with bated breath, Jae. 

Not baited. Bated. There was quite the discussion about this on one of the threads. 

Bated = Halted. 

Let me guess?

baby carrots are made from human babies???

Jae, you already told us you wanted to come out of the closet on the naming of wondercafe site, right?

Do we have another mystery on par with the identity of EZed the squirrel? 

Here we go again????

 tadpole season is approaching

No, Jae wants to play a stupid game. Deleted the PM.

I didn't get a PM Chansen. Should I be jealous? 

In the beginning of the PM I asked you to keep it private and confidential. Guess you chose not to.

Okay, so we now know where two of the future mods stand on privacy.

hardly a privacy issue jae - sounds more like a deliberate attempt to manipulate on your part. 

Is this the old match3frog avatar, Jae? It looks familiar but I can't say for sure. 

Nope. It was something started on Facebook, carolla, and I just tried it here. As chansen has now made known that it was a game, there's no need to continue it. I think it would have been fun. Ah well.

No, paradox3, it isn't. I looked for the old one but couldn't find it. Thought this one was close enough to represent my match 3 frog days.

You're being an idiot again. Should I put that in a PM as well?

No, chansen, not really. I asked you to keep my wondermail private and you chose to disclose the gist of it, thus ruining the game I had hoped for many to enjoy. 'Nuff said.

It was some crap about me having to embed some secret phrases in my future posts. This forum isn't your playground. Be an idiot elsewhere. Facebook sounds like a perfect place.

That wasn't the game. I'd ask you to reread the wondermail, but you say you have deleted it. I guess I still have a copy of it since I sent it. Please do not call me an idiot ever again - that's harassment.

Social is normally the place where word games and so on, are played.

Word games played in the open, sure. Conscripting people into a secretive game because they happened to reply to your thread is idiotic.

Sounds like most facebook games.

I like it on the couch in blue while going to Hawaii for 10 weeks, I'm due in 25 days.  Breast Cancer!  lolzzzzz

You can think that way if you want to, but such thoughts need not lead you to insulting, harassing, and mocking me like I feel you so often do. If you are unable to communicate with me without malice, kindly do not communicate with me nor speak about me at all.

is this part of the game?

*breaks out the popcorn*

Inanna you crack me up!

I'm happy to be on the sidelines....Can I share your popcorn?

ps. Jae, I think you stole the line of "kindly do not communicate with me nor speak about me at all."  from Serena.

Post the PM.

Big disappointment.......I was reading upthread about tadpoles....

The PM notification was still in my email.

Here, let me do the worst thing imaginable and post a PM:

Chansen, you party-pooper you.

???

yuppers, chansen, mere mortal he, can be a stuffed shirt too sometimes :3

here`s to hoping he never blows an o-ring...

I know. I killed Wondercafe's first Wonderchainmail. What was I thinking?

Well done, Chansen!

I do not like those games

I'm going to take a "fun thread" and turn it serious for a minute. What criteria led to posting someones private email Chansen? Was a public shaming necessary in this case? What was the reasoning behind it?

Waterfall this goes back to the sender deciding to put power over a recipient through a mail send.

Mail being private is based on role, relationship and content

If you send me an email asking for a meeting time and I don't know then it is appropriate for me to forward without asking permission first

I know it just seems more appropriate just to PM back and say I'm not playing this game or just post and say it.

If you attempt to manipulate by sending me an email, then discuss in a thread suggesting it can't be shared then again no privacy is implied

There is no logical reason that jae would presume chansen would play this game. He has no history of positive relationship or chansen playing such games

Jaes is being disingenuous with his "oh, woe is me, my private wondermail was shared"

Just saying, on the new site (and here) maybe it should be more clear. I'm not a big wondermailer anyway, but it still concerns me. I feel badly for those who have had their private mail shared without permission.

It's like this ..... you don't send an email and in it require it to be kept private all in one breath.

You ask first for permission to share something to be kept private and then after receiving the agreement ... only then share the message....

The same applies to sharing a secret in person.

Simply telling me it is to be a secret is does not bind me to silence .... I have to agree first.

Then there is the issue about whether what is shared meets the criteria to be kept secret.    Some things are not...... there are limits....

Just my thoughts....

Rita

What should be the limits Rita?

Waterfall, the other day, a friend sent me a chat message, and shared some really tough news.  I felt bad.  It was personal.   Later, I sent him a chat and asked if he had shared that information with a coworker that I knew would care to know.  A few hours later that coworker said to me "so&so just shared the information wiht me he had shared with you.  can you think of anything we can do to help".    

I also regularly get emails asking for information, or sharing non-personal information.  examples may be did you know about this security risk, or when is the meeting, or just email sent to the wrong person,  ie a role you used to have as a chair or volunteer.  I get announcements which clearly are information desired to be shared..."fundraiser for..."

I share these examples  as in our every day lives we get information shared with us through talk, chat, text, and email.  

As the person initiating the communication, we make decisions on what to share based on our relationship with the recipient.  

As the person receiving the communication, we make decisions based on the content.

It's not a fun thread.

It was a twist on your basic chain letter. Here's your secret message, embed these idiotic phrases in new threads so I get my jollies and pass it along.

This is a perfect example where common sense trumps whatever list of rules you may come up with. Who the hell expected a chain letter here? Now that Jae has done the unthinkable and sent one, does that mean I'm bound to silence over it? Hell no.

If you're sending a message to me, I'm fine with that, and I'm not going to post it.

If we exchange a bunch of friendly PMs where I'm trying to help you and you turn around and publicly call me a bully, I may blow my stack and point out that I've been helpful to you and the antithesis of a bully, but I won't post the PMs unless you say they never happened. 

If you send me a PM that attempts to manipulate me into posting in a certain way because that excites you, you're an idiot, and I'm going to post the PM.

To me, that's just basic common sense. If you like to be manipulated, ask Jae to be part of some future game. If you agree to something like this beforehand, great. Otherwise, like Pinga said, this is Jae being disingenuous with his, "Woe is me, you posted my PM" line.

Pinga, example one sounds right. It was personal and he chose to share his information himself.

The other ones are workplace memos or information that I wouldn't see as personal emails.

I am referring to personal information shared. It's about trust IMO.

It reminds me of those silly emails everyone gets. You know the ones that say if you send it to 10 of your friends you will have good luck, or pass this email on if you love Jesus, etc.... I press delete 100% of the time and if it keeps up I ask the sender to stop.

Privately, no fan fare, no public display, no calling them idiots. Just saying......

I tend to handle attempted manipulation differently, that's all.

I know, in fact you have the gift to handle the situation without the email as backup. :)

But we should have something in place for the new site to create trust for personal emails, wouldn't you think?

Waterfall, the point is , there is a difference between a transfer of information that is personal, and a transfer of information.  It isn't the email, it is the content.

If you were to say mails which contain personal information have a requirement of both the sender and the receiver, then I would concur....and we could discuss.

But, to put it down as all mails, or communications, is where I have to say 'sorry, but no"