![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 161. Go back in thread:
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 5:23:59
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
I read somewhere on here that outsiders (sorry, but that is what those who are not *allowed* to post on the 2000 board are) can respond to messages they see on the 2000 board by cross posting to PSB -- first, I'm not even sure how to do that (not that I would anyway), but second, are those who frequent the 2000 board really going to think to check both the 2000 board AND PSB for responses to what they post on 2000 board? Gimme a break. The chances of an outsider receiving a response to something they cross post on PSB seem slim imo.
Well, now the concept of the 2000 board has become laughable in addition to the adjectives I used above.
Posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 9:29:59
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
Hi Janelle,
I agree with everything you said. A clique was the first thing that came to my mind when I learned about the existence of this exclusionary group. I am also looking into other venues for support now, because it is clear that this is not the group I thought it was when I joined several months ago. I will probably continue to post and read here, but my feelings about PB have permanently changed, and I am appalled that Dr. Bob would allow and condone the OT board. I find it very worrisome that Dr. Bob, a psychiatrist, trained in mental health and human behavior, does not seem to see through what is going on here.
Bekka
Posted by Phil on April 21, 2002, at 9:39:29
In reply to And one more thing!, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 5:23:59
You know, I tell all my friends, what..2? that I am a prestigious member of an old timers board for mentally ill people. They are GREEN with envy.
I mean, PB is a clique. Can I post here if I segway into Parkinson's?
I've been here since there were a couple dozen posters. This board has grown so much. I went thru a few periods of not posting because I didn't know anyone and the board was refreshing faster than I could post.
I don't think it hurts to spread out a bit. I don't want to talk to old timers all the time. PSB is the best thing to come along in a long time and psycho-babble, as far as anything on the internet, is the best there is. Show me anything
operated better. Show me another site Dr. Goldberg pops in to answer a question.
Who cares if a few old farts want to go to the
VFW hall and tell a few lies or have a 50 post thread on Erectile Dysfunction and another on constipation.We are all lucky to have this site at all. True to form(me included), depressed people see what they don't have, not what they have left. Focus on YOUR RECOVERY, YOUR getting well, YOUR helping others and, sometimes the hardest thing of all, YOUR being able to accept help. You will forget all about a new board.
Let it go, grasshoppa...
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 21, 2002, at 9:49:56
In reply to Gosh!, posted by beardedlady on April 21, 2002, at 5:17:12
Hell, we can talk about our bowel habits as well as the next guy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%but maybe someone has a suppository handy ...but the sphincture's closed : )
Dr.Eamer universal psychiatrist live and unplugged
Posted by Phil on April 21, 2002, at 10:04:32
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a - Janelle, posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 9:29:59
I'm not very opinionated really, I like telling jokes more than dealing with administrative stuff.
But I could not disagree more with you. Wanna go somewhere else? That's your choice. Please let me know when you find this quality of information somewhere else.
I thought PB was going to hell when so many new people came on board. It didn't, it got better.
I could care less if there's an old timers board or not. But it's there and it is kinda nice sometimes to see a name you've known for years.
You've been here several months, an old timers board pops up and now IT'S ALL GOING TO HELL.
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
There was only 1 board to begin with. If the old timers get run outta town because they tried the experiment, that would be a shame. We're OT's because we still need help and still like to help.Let's move on...when's the new Celexa gonna hit?
I ate a pizza and drank 15 imported beers on Nardil, as I write this my head is splitting. I have a craving for beef jerky, will that help my headache?
Here's my combo...Celexa, Demerol, Nardil, Dexedrine, Klonopin, Amitriptyline, and X. I haven't been feeling well....
Posted by beardedlady on April 21, 2002, at 10:30:55
In reply to Re: And one more thing!, posted by Phil on April 21, 2002, at 9:39:29
Posted by IsoM on April 21, 2002, at 12:39:39
In reply to And one more thing!, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 5:23:59
Sweet Janelle (I do think of you as sweet), yes, the old-timers DO respond to inquiries on other boards. I find that these old-timers are among the most patient & dear of the forum. They've been here for ages, weathered all sorts of horrible things & yet still come back to support & help others. Here's how to answer a post & then get it into another board:
1. Okay, when you're ready to post a reply (no matter what board you're in), there's a horizontal line above with 'Enter your post' in large bold letters.
2. The first thing underneath that is the word 'Board:' alongside a drop-down field (fields are what those white blank spaces we type in - like this message I'm typing now in the large blank field).
3. If you click on the little down-pointing arrowhead, it'll open up a mini-menu of the other boards of Dr. Bob's forum.
4. You can type an answer here like I'm doing in PB Admin, but select another board (from the drop-down menu) to have the answer show in. Your response will show only in the board you've selected it to be in.
That's it! Simple once someone tells you the steps. Try it with the word 'test' a few times to check it out.
Posted by IsoM on April 21, 2002, at 12:50:40
In reply to Gosh!, posted by beardedlady on April 21, 2002, at 5:17:12
Right, Beire-dei, not all things we're excluded from are worth getting into. A funny case in point.
Being ADHD, I can sometimes see the most obscure things while missing the obvious. Years ago, my girl-friend & I were travelling a few hundred miles someplace in her old car. We both needed to pee desperately & when a gas station came in sight, we wheeled in. (No, there were no bushes or anything else to empty ourselves!)
The gas station was pretty run-down looking but we needed to go so bad, that we grabbed the key handed us without looking at it & went to the washroom door. Trouble is, it was the key to the men's washroom, not the women's, & we were practically peeing our pants. Inside we went & made sure we locked the door so no guy would come in. We gazed around in horror, thinking how the h--- were we going to pee in those??!! And everything was so dirty! Instead of facing the urinal like men do, we turned about & leaning way forward, with butt in air, managed to empty ourselves without splashing all over our legs. :-P We made doubly sure not to touch anything too.
When we talk about that now, we crack up. Somethings really ARE meant to be exclusive.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
> That still doesn't really address the issue. I'm not going to post there now (she says defiantly, then the next day, there's a hello from "Kingfish" :)).
Sorry, what issue?
In general, "multiple identities" tends to be a problem here, so I'd rather transfer your "membership" to Krazy Kat. I hope that's OK.
> I don't care if folks have their own groups... I Do think it's more appropriate elsewhere.
Why so?
> I think Fi summed it up best - it's just become much more complicated than it was.
>
> - kkI know. Oh, those simple days of yore. :-)
--------
> In a word, the 2000 board has created a CLIQUE, which imo is abhorrent and juvenile (geez, it harkens back to junior high and high school days).
"Clique" does have negative connotations, but as Phil says, PB itself could be seen as a clique. And in fact has been.
> I cannot believe what I've just read here - that people are actually be BLOCKED from posting on the old timers/200 board. Huh? So, now there's the CLIQUE of INSIDERS, the inner circle, the inner sanctum and there's the OUTSIDERS, those who are literally BLOCKED OUT. This is ABSURD.
This was discussed some before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/4185.html
> I don't want to leave here (the info I've learned and people have been wonderful) ... I just hope I can get past some of these feelings. They're very raw right now.
>
> JanelleI appreciate that.
I do want to see if this can work and want continued input, so my intention is *not* to deflect criticism, but I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 14:07:39
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Dr. Bob:
Seems like a good time to look at this concept to me. If I recall correctly, you have advocated the good of the whole over the good of the individual here. I actually tend to lean more towards the Ayn Rand view overall, but that's neither here nor there.
I cannot see how this new board is good for the whole. Again, I can (happily) post there, but it still makes me feel odd.
Re: why should this be done elsewhere? Because it Can be interpretted as playing favorites, and isn't that something you're always trying to avoid with civility issues?
It seems like an odd thing for you to do, potentially destructive, though again, I certainly understand the "old timers" desire to "get together".
Isn't there a different solution?
- kk
Posted by SusanG on April 21, 2002, at 14:13:52
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Dr. Bob I am just wondering....Suppose you were doing group therapy. This group occasionally admits new members, as some do. They contribute to the group as the others do even though they do not have as much "history" with the group as the original members do, and their contributions are valuable. Now one day, some of the original group members decide they want to catch up on some old issues and want to spend the first half of group time each week discussing these thing. The newer members are allowed to sit in their chairs, and listen, but can't speak, question or contribute. Good therapy? IMHO, no.
With regard to the idea that there are other groups out in the real world that are exclusive: sure there are. But many of the examples given don't really match this situation. It was my understanding that this board was created to provide an avenue for people....all kinds, shapes, and sizes of people...to share, support and learn from each other. Having any kind of situation here that excludes some (other than those being inappropriate) is, I feel, unwise, potentially quite hurtful, and not worth the ill will it has apparently created.
I'm feeling that we're all special, but here some are more special than others. Shades of Animal Farm.
Perhaps the "group" mentioned above should have just arranged to go out for coffee together.
Posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 14:33:36
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
Hi Janelle,
I must mention that you sound much better. What do you think? As I read through your posts on this thread, it occurred to me that you seem MUCH more focused. You expressed yourself so well. I do hope that you are feeling better.
Bekka
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 21, 2002, at 14:42:37
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
> I know. Oh, those simple days of yore. :-)
Hey bob.. you made me laugh!
Posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:12:50
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
> > I don't want to leave here (the info I've learned and people have been wonderful) ... I just hope I can get past some of these feelings. They're very raw right now.
> >
> > Janelle
>
> I appreciate that.
>
> I do want to see if this can work and want continued input, so my intention is *not* to deflect criticism, but I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
>
> BobI daresay that's true Dr. Bob. Those of us who weren't in the popular cliques in junior high or high school, and those of us who have a history of being excluded probably do feel worse at being excluded now. And you're asking because you think that makes the objections of those who have personal experience with the effects of exclusion less valuable? Or perhaps just less objective? And are less objective opinions on an issue of emotional rather than logical content less valuable or should they be given less weight?
I'm actually not aware of feeling personally hurt by the new board; I guess it's possible that I am hurt without being aware of it. I don't remember being hurt by cliques in my youth either. I always figured it was OK for people who liked each other and had a lot in common to hang out together. I remember being hurt by those who went out of their ways to pick on me, but I was sort of live and let live as to cliques.
But I'll admit to being annoyed at the institutional endorsement of this group, and more importantly the seeming dismissal of the hurt feelings of those who are hurt by the idea. I don't see that splitting the group into those who can or can't post on a certain board is good for the whole. I wholeheartedly endorse the opinion stated far more clearly by Susan G.
And while I see my objection as being based in principle not in personal feelings, I will keep your question in mind. Although perhaps you could clarify why you asked it, along the lines of my first paragraph.
Posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:40:24
In reply to Re: those who have been neglected » Dr. Bob, posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:12:50
Your question just struck me as an odd one, but I don't usually "hear" things in the way other people do, so perhaps it's just me. So I posted what was meant to be a philosophical discussion of the new board in the context of your question. But I don't know if the tone of my previous post came across that way. It seems in reading it over to be a bit confrontational, and I didn't mean it to be. Not this time. :)
Sorry again.
Posted by shar on April 21, 2002, at 19:45:07
In reply to Re: And one more thing!, posted by Phil on April 21, 2002, at 9:39:29
[Wow! This thread has so much energy in it!]
I notice that in some posts people use the term "this board" to refer to the web site. I wanted to point out that we have: the original PB (meds), PSocialB, Tele-Psycho (or Tell a Psycho as I like to think of it), PBAdmin, PB2000, PB book board, once was PBChildren board. That's 6 now, 7 tried so far. The 6 boards have fairly different levels of support to them, probably PSB and PB having the most. I worry when people stop making distinctions and begin to paint things with one broad brush (and/or using superlatives).
So, there isn't really "a" board now, like there was when I came (PB only).We've had other occurrences similar to the current one as the new boards cropped up, where feelings got hurt, people stopped posting for a period of time, there was polarization, etc. I expect that the uproar about the 2000 board will calm down--I hope so.
Hurt feelings suck--been there many times. Like the family this site is, there are bound to be ups and downs, healing, hurting some more....a big unpredictable series of events where people may meet in the middle on one issue, and be at opposite ends on another.
Above all, tho, we do seem to pull together and support each other pretty well overall, plus when we are shocked or shaken at the things that happen around us. I am thinking of Sar's death, of course, and 9/11, as examples that shook us all.
Shar
P.S. "I am a prestigious member of an old timers board for mentally ill people" - Phil, lol, gotta get those points in where we can!
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
In reply to The Bouncing Babble Boards , posted by shar on April 21, 2002, at 19:45:07
and please correct me if i'm wrong, that people have not been Unable to post before. if you are not registered before 2000, write a post and submit it, you are told you cannot post.
that's exclusionary.
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:28:42
In reply to the difference is... » shar, posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
read my next thread on here, directed to Dr. Bob! The wording of how you are blocked from posting on the new board is major league insulting, imo. Bad enough the existence of an exclusionary board that has divided this community, but check out my next thread where I get into how it's all worded. Ugh.
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 20:31:24
In reply to the difference is... » shar, posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
that comment of mine sounds really short - i'm sorry. i really didn't mean it that way...
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:37:34
In reply to You are right, Krazy Kat and it gets worse... » Krazy Kat, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:28:42
Insult (literally) is added to the injury of the new exclusionary 2000 board by the message which appears when an OUTSIDER tries to post there. For kicks and grimaces I tried to post a test message there after reading on here that as an OUTSIDER I would be REJECTED, and I could not believe the wording of the rejection message! It is downright INSULTING. It says (and I have copied/pasted directly here): Sorry, but this board is restricted and you don't seem to have permission to post to it. If you think you should, please email me.
Excuse me, but PERMISSION? You don't seem to have PERMISSION to post to it? What's with PERMISSION - kindergardeners need PERMISSION slips to go on field trips. Geez.
If there's gotta be this exclusionary board, the very LEAST that could have been done should have been more sensitive, more politically correct wording of the rejection message, i.e., something along the lines of "this site does not seem to be AVAILABLE to you ..." (the rest is fine)
But to tell people they don't have PERMISSION to post there is, as I said above INSULTING. jmho.
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:47:59
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a - Janelle, posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 9:29:59
Hi Bekka,
At least SOMEONE (you!) agrees with and understands everything I said. It took me a LONG time and many revisions before I held my breath (I was a nervous wreck) and hit the "confirm" key to put up that thread on here about the CLIQUE created by the formation of the exclusionary 2000 board.
Wow, so you are also looking into other venues for support now, because it is clear that this is not the group you thought it was when you joined several months ago. Same exact thing here. Like you I will probably continue to post and read, but my feelings about PB have also permanently changed.
I didn't mention it in any of my threads here, but I am also appalled that Dr. Bob would allow and condone the OT board. I think you worded it PERFECTLY when you stated that you find it very worrisome that Dr. Bob, a psychiatrist, trained in mental health and human behavior, does not seem to see through what is going on here.
As for your inquiry about my health, how sweet of you to make the observation you did and to ask about me ... the answer is not what you might think, but due to the changing nature of this board, as much as I do want to share details with you, I do not feel comfortable opening up on here. Perhaps on PB we can catch up, but I'm not ready to even go posting on there as of yet. I'm still too shook up by the formation of the new board and what it stands for. I hope you understand.
Thanks for your interest!
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:36:20
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Why do you want to "see if this can work"?Zo
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:40:04
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
"I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?"
Is that really appropriate? No.
Does it give the impression we are not really heard? Yes.
Is it possible that something genuinely harmful to the board as a whole, and hurtful to a number of people, has occured?
Could you have made a mistake?
Zo
Posted by kiddo on April 21, 2002, at 22:33:55
In reply to dr. b, others, hurt feeling and old timers board, posted by Krazy Kat on April 19, 2002, at 10:46:19
I can't believe there weren't a few PBC's thrown into this one!
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:16:36
In reply to DR. BOB - ''permission?'' ''PERMISSION?'' ???, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:37:34
> Re: why should this be done elsewhere? Because it Can be interpretted as playing favorites
>
> - kkHmm. So it would be OK if it were out of my hands, but I shouldn't encourage it?
I can see that a "frequent fliers" board would be playing favorites, but does that apply to "class of xxx" boards? I know right now there's just 2000, I guess one thing I need to do is get going on 2001...
--------
> Suppose you were doing group therapy. This group occasionally admits new members, as some do. They contribute to the group as the others do even though they do not have as much "history" with the group as the original members do, and their contributions are valuable. Now one day, some of the original group members decide they want to catch up on some old issues and want to spend the first half of group time each week discussing these thing. The newer members are allowed to sit in their chairs, and listen, but can't speak, question or contribute. Good therapy? IMHO, no.
But in this case nothing's taken away from the other boards...
> Perhaps the "group" mentioned above should have just arranged to go out for coffee together.
>
> SusanGAnd in fact it could be seen as going out for coffee on their own. Except that it's not as private. Would it be better if others couldn't listen in?
--------
> > I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
>
> you're asking because you think that makes the objections of those who have personal experience with the effects of exclusion less valuable? Or perhaps just less objective? And are less objective opinions on an issue of emotional rather than logical content less valuable or should they be given less weight?
>
> DinahMI suppose, if pushed, I'd have to say yes, perhaps less objective. But I wouldn't say this is an issue of emotional *rather than* logical content, but one of both. Since there is the practical issue of how to proceed.
--------
> If there's gotta be this exclusionary board, the very LEAST that could have been done should have been more sensitive, more politically correct wording of the rejection message, i.e., something along the lines of "this site does not seem to be AVAILABLE to you ..." (the rest is fine)
>
> JanelleThanks for the suggestion, whew, it's nice to have something specific I can fix. :-)
Bob
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.