Are PM's really private?

[missmuffet]

@George Today I was on a PM with another member and Omega came into the private conversation. Are PMs really private? If they are not then I will never send one again. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 hours ago, missmuffet said:

@George Today I was on a PM with another member and Omega came into the private conversation. Are PMs really private? If they are not then I will never send one again. 

Since as much as you have elected to ask George that question in public, I will take the opportunity it answer that. The question is not directed to me, but since I am part of the topic, I will give you the benefit of my perspective anyway, give me a few minutes,, and I will will give you an answer, the best I know how.

First off though, I would point out, that the gizmo people click to initiate messages, says "Messages", it does not say "Private Messages".

That is not my answer to your question (that I will give you in my next reply) but before I get to that, I will say that that is an excellent question, I'll continue in a few minutes.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

You have, for reasons of your own, decided to make this conversation public, instead of asking George directly. So, public this is.

First off, how or why was I in that conversation you were having? I was there, because I got a notification. The notification looked like this:

So, having been notified that you sent me a message, I clicked on the message to see what you wanted to talk to me about! Clicking that notification, brought me to what I saw next:

I obscured the other member in that screenshot, but you can see that they, and you, and I, are active members in that conversation. I assume that if you go to that conversation, you will see what I saw, that there are three members there, no one is hiding or in secret, it is right there in plain sight. You will also notice, that the conversation had been going on hours before I arrived. I would assume then, that one of you whether by accident, intentionally, if just not knowing what you were doing, probably clicked that little +   thing to add another member to the conversation, that of course would be me. Perhaps it was someone's intention to do the @Omegaman 3.0 thing. I don't know how it happened, I only know that I did not invade the conversation, from what I could tell, I was invited in.

Once in the conversation, of course I read it, why wouldn't I? I was "sent a message by you (that was the information I had) so I figured I should read it. Of course now it is obvious that you did not intend for me to be there, or know that I was reading the conversation, but at the time, I thought that since the two of you were talking about me, you probably thought I needed to know what you were saying about me. I thought that was noble. Sorry, I was mistaken about that.

So, what was one of the things that I saw? here, this is a partial screen shot:

Okay so in summary of what you see there, you said that you thought that Worthy needs better and more servants than Omega, I assume Omega there, is a reference to me, Omegaman 3.0. As you can also see, I agreed with you, and I do agree with you!

At that point, you seem to be aware that I am there, and you were under the impression that the conversation between you and the other member was just between you and they. After I got the notification that you sent a message to me, that was no longer the case.

Clearly, now, you did not know your were sending a message to me. That is what the software does. When anyone of the members in the message posts, the other members (me in this case) are notified that a new message has been posted in the conversation.

Now, to be clear . . .  

I, as a servant, cannot see the messages that go on between you and another member, unless I have been added into the conversation, as I was, I cannot add myself. I do not know this for a fact, one way or the other, but I assume the George as the Steward of Worthy Christian Forums, has full access to everything on the server, it is his server, after all, but that is his business, and I doubt it is something easy like: "Gee, I wonder what missmuffet is saying about me behind my back!"! I don't think he works that way, and I am sure he has better things to do with his time.

I hope your are not too upset with all of this, and can see the humor in it that I do, and perhaps others looking at this thread do. If you have other questions or concerns that I can address, you be sure to let me know. Have I blessed day!

By the way, as a general principle, it is probably better in most cases, not to say things that you do not want known anyway. I tend to make it a rule that to say things about people, that I would not say to people. 

[kwikphilly]

Sorry but this is very funny.....and not funny at Omegas @Omegaman 3.0 expense because I have no doubt he got a kick out of it....

My Mom always taught me"If you want to keep your secret then keep it to yourself"

 

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, missmuffet said:

@George Today I was on a PM with another member and Omega came into the private conversation. Are PMs really private? If they are not then I will never send one again. 

In effect, you invited him into the conversation by looking up his nick with the 'at' symbol, like this @missmuffet.  The 'at' symbols work like an address pointer. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

OK, just an update, this should clear up any confusion. The other, unnamed (in this thread) participant in that message conversation, has added into that conversation, that they had invited me into it. I am grateful that they mentioned that, as it clears things up, that no one did anything wrong, hopefully in the future, people won't jump to conclusions.

I will also repeat, that missmuffet is correct, that we are understaffed, and that I could be a better administrator. However, I am doing the best I know how, and I have the same limitations that most people have.

[Sparks]

Well, technically, the unnamed person was named in the screen snapshot you made. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Well, technically, the unnamed person was named in the screen snapshot you made. 

That confuses me, not that hard to do. I am confuse, because I cannot see what you are referring to. If the persons' name is there, it is an accident, and it would have been considerate of you not to draw people's attention to it, when I was obviously attempting to keep them antonymous.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Rosie1jack2pauline3 said:

and why do we need more admin is my question?

Thanks for the encouragement and vote of confidence Rosiejack2pauline3. To answer the question, there are only a few of us to oversee the posts of tens of thousands of members. We volunteer time, we have lives outside of Worthy so we only have so much ability to attend to these things. One thing that is clear to me after being in this ministry since 2004, is I cannot please everyone. To some I over moderate, to others, I do not moderate enough. To some I am too liberal, to others I am too strict. I am a tyrant, a control freak, a heretic, person who plays favorites, senile, and of course, just plain wrong. Others who have served in this capacity, know exactly what I am talking about. Occasionally, someone write a note of encouragement, appreciation, etc. It's all good, and I understood it from the beginning, that it would be this way, so it is all good!

P.S. Everyone who reads this. Feel free to pray for the staff of Worthy, that we would be wise, exercise the fruit of the Spirit, and be in the center of God's will.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Well, technically, the unnamed person was named in the screen snapshot you made. 

Oh yes, I see that now, had to look about 5 times. I'll fix that, thanks!