![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 69 to 93 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by partlycloudy on January 24, 2005, at 9:15:00
In reply to do not like the idea.., posted by justyourlaugh on January 24, 2005, at 0:12:05
I'm with you on this. I guess that makes us a clique, lol.
I don't like the idea of not being able to post where I want to. As it is, and by my choice, I don't post on all available boards here. If I had a Burning Desire that wanted to be expressed, it doesn't seem right that I wouldn't be able to post it.
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
> > 1. How large do you envision that these groups would be?
>
> I don't know, between 15 and 50 posters?Just so you know, by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think. So you really already have several "small town" boards. This tells me that it's not size that you're intrigued with, so much as restrictions on use. If you peruse this thread, you'll see that for those who commented, it's the possible restrictiveness that bothers most.
>
> > 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
>
> If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while. Open spots would be filled according to #2.This is a tough one because people take breaks from Babble all the time, in fact many of us see breaks as being beneficial, and sometimes they're necessitated by personal circumstances or recommended by Ts. How will that dynamic be affected by the prospect of losing one's core base of support? As a person who's taken a fair number of breaks, I can tell you that there's something very comforting about being able to come back here and find some of the same people who were here when you left. I don't think PB will seem anywhere near as accessible if I come back and find that many of those people are not accessible to me.
>
> >
>
> Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
>
> But someone might not be interested in both. They might want to spend all their time in the big city. Or they might never want to go. That would be fine, too.Here's a problem with your analogy. I live in a small town, and the notion that you get to know your neighbors more easily in small towns is a myth perpetuated by people who live in cities. You may have a nodding acquaintance with more people, but I think that's about it. More likely, in both types of places you seem to end up hanging out with the people who have similar interests or with whom you click in some way. When you move out of either a small town or a city, it's very difficult to perpetuate your old friendships unless both parties really work at it. If you start breaking us up into different small towns, and we all become comfortable with that arrangement, we will drift apart and become unavailable to one another. It's not what we may prefer, as you suggest. I think it's more what will simply happen by default. It takes a lot more effort to keep a friendship active than it does to let one slide, and if time is limited, people are likely to devote most of their time to what's most familiar, eg the small board. Other connections will just become more tenuous.
I also think this will make the Board seem incredibly less inviting to lurkers, new visitors and to those who take breaks for awhile and come back. You can restrict us from posting on certain boards; you can't restrict us from reading posts on restricted boards. So you're going to increase the number of instances where someone feels that they're on the outside, looking in.
Mair
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
I won't say I told you so. ;)
Sigh. Dr. Bob'll do what Dr. Bob wants to do.
I don't understand why posters would want it.
I unfortunately do understand why Dr. Bob wants it. I ought to sic my mother on him.
If I didn't love Babble so, I'd join the exodus. What is there about this place that I'm so fond of even when my response to Admin decisions is to want to spew my breakfast.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
In reply to Re: small town groups » mair, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 14:07:04
Partlycloudy
You could still post to all of the boards you can currently post to. If you wanted to respond to something you could respond to it on one of the current boards and / or send them a babblemail.
mair
I don't think it is just about 'regular posters'. People come and go all the time. That can be a bit disconcerting. To post something that can be well understood in the context of previous posts but easily misunderstood by someone who hasn't been following. I often get responses which show me that people haven't been following my 'saga' and I am not sure what to do except thank people for their input. Sometimes I find this frustrating though. I have the urge to yell BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION TO ME HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS but of course I do understand that they are really well intentioned and it isn't their fault. But I say this just to provide an example of something that could be an advantage of a small town board.
People do take breaks from Babble all the time. But I don't think that would result in people losing their 'core base of support' because the boards that are currently available would still be available to them. The boards that are currently available will continue to be available to everyone. People seem to be thinking that if these boards are set up then everyone will leave the big city to go to these new boards. I really don't think that would be the case. I think it is much more likely that there won't be many people who will want to participate in a smaller board with a restriction on the number of posters. I don't think that setting up new boards will change the old babble much. Every time Dr B sets up a new board do the old boards change? That doesn't seem to be the case to me. Rather, babble seems to continue on growing... I really don't think there would be many people who would give up on the main babble boards in favour of the smaller ones. But even if people choose to do this isn't that their choice to make? You can always contact those people still via babblemail.
I don't think the notion is that you do get to know your neighbors in small towns, more that it is much easier to get to know them should you want to get to know some people. I think smaller boards would make it easier to keep track of peoples stories. What is going on for them. What has been going on for them etc.
Dinah.
I think I would like to be part of a smaller board. I don't think I would withdraw from the rest of babble as a consequence of that though. I have mentioned a reason above.
Why do you think Dr B wants to do this?
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 15:58:20
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I don't believe in restrictive boards.
Those that do can join the small town boards.
I think Dr. Bob is researching.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:06:08
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 15:53:55
I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join. In his school, the children are not allowed to discuss birthday parties which all children are not invited to, or to pass out invitations in class unless all children are invited. "You can't say you can't play." That's the reason I pay a g*dawful percentage of my pay to send him there. It's a rule at his school that you are *absolutely delighted* to have whoever shows up sit at your table, and join in your reindeer games.
I am *absolutely delighted* to have any and every poster join any and every thread that I participate on. I do not post where every and any poster can't delight me with their company. That's my rule, it doesn't have to be everyone's.
I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption. Which is a comment on the concept, not on any particular poster.
I believe Dr. Bob's intent is research related.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
In reply to Re: small town groups, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 8:25:46
How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
Posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
In reply to Hey Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
It sounds almost like a civilized form of segregation. How unfortunate it would be for people to come to PB thinking they have found a safe haven of welcoming and, to some degree, unconditional support, only to have some doors closed in their faces.
I like the diversity of views and personalities one finds on each of the various boards, even though I sometimes feel shy and out of place on some boards. I think this diversity, and the unrestricted access to it, is what makes Babble so unique, welcoming and endearing for so many people.
Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Just my 2 cents FWIW.
> How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
>
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 24, 2005, at 16:35:55
In reply to Re: Hey Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
>
> Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
>
Oh lordy, we need to make that our mantra here!Thanks for posting it.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
In reply to Re: small town groups » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:06:08
That is an interesting idea... I had something similar as I went to a small christian school. Started out with 8 people but grew to maybe 6o by the time I left. The only worry with that is what happens when one hits the 'real world' or, in my case, the public schooling system later.
If one doesn't learn to deal with the hurt that results from being excluded sometimes then it can be harder to learn WHY excluding people isn't nice.
It is a fact that we seek certain people more than others, however. It is a fact that some people are excluded sometimes. Think about immigration to the US as an example...
I do think it is nice.
The world doesn't work that way.
But perhaps it should.
And perhaps the way to get it to work that way is by starting somewhere.
Maybe we have a clash of ideology here...
> I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption. Which is a comment on the concept, not on any particular poster.No, I do understand that. I also have some sympathy for the notion...
> I believe Dr. Bob's intent is research related.
Ah, I guess we may have different views on research.
I really do hear what you are saying. I am thinking about it. Maybe you are going to get me to change my mind on this....
But I still like the idea..
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:44:50
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
Actually, I apologize for my vehemence. Dr. Bob is probably going to implement a policy that violates one of my core values and I'm repulsed by my lack of integrity and spine for not disassociating myself from Babble over it. But I since I won't, I should probably despise my mealworm qualities privately.
Dr. Bob is an unstoppable force.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:50:10
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 16:54:05
Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
I really am not unaware of the irony of sending my son to a private school that shares my values of inclusion and tolerance. :) I'm Montessori to my fingers.
Posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:53:01
In reply to Re: Hey Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by jujube on January 24, 2005, at 16:33:51
I agree completely. And I find I've learned so much from that! It is inordinately rare that I don't learn to genuinely welcome the input and viewpoint of each poster.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:04:10
In reply to Re: small town groups » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:44:50
> Actually, I apologize for my vehemence.
No, you don't need to apologize.
>Dr. Bob is probably going to implement a policy that violates one of my core values and I'm repulsed by my lack of integrity and spine for not disassociating myself from Babble over it.
But if it violates one of your core values then doesn't it indicate more integrity and spine to talk about what your values are and why you have them? That way other people can understand where you are coming from and maybe even come to see things in a similar way.
If you dissociate yourself then we lose out. Being selfish here. I am sorry that you are hurting over this. But I think you are doing really well NOT to dissociate. It is just that maybe Dr B has a different ideology. Maybe we can understand things a bit from his point of view as well? Not that we have to agree at the end of the day...
> Dr. Bob is an unstoppable force.
Heh heh. Unless we all decide to split he may well be :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:21:06
In reply to P.S. » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 17:50:10
> Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
Sure, can do. Just ask a question or something to get the ball rolling.
Though I expect I shall have to bite my tongue rather severely if we get into teaching 'morality', religion, and the teaching or non teaching of sex ed / safe sexual practices.
> I really am not unaware of the irony of sending my son to a private school that shares my values of inclusion and tolerance.Irony? Well you would hardly send him off to somewhere where you didn't agree with their values.
:) I'm Montessori to my fingers.
I have heard of that. We have their early childhood centers and after school care agencies all over. What is that about?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 19:47:04
In reply to Re: P.S. » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 18:21:06
> > Your school sounds fascinating. Would you like to discuss education on Social?
>
> Sure, can do. Just ask a question or something to get the ball rolling.That itself was "something"... Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050123/msgs/447030.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2005, at 20:07:16
In reply to Redirect: education, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2005, at 19:47:04
Ya. Realised that AFTER I'd posted. Thanks for the redirect.
Posted by henrietta on January 24, 2005, at 20:08:49
In reply to Re: small town groups » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 11:31:19
Mair:
Thank you for a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and brilliant post. I'm in awe.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 24, 2005, at 20:18:37
In reply to Hey Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2005, at 16:10:18
> How many small towns close their borders and don't let "outsiders" in? I know *I'd* not want to live in a small town that did.
>
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns. You're insulting small towns everywhere.
I think that's an important distinction, that euphemisim, small town boards, really offends me.
Most small towns have welcome signs posted as a greeting when you enter into them, not "You may not converse with the residents" I'm afraid these boards remind me more of the sign outside the "Old American" Biker bar in the city I used to live in:
NO non-whites
and NO funny haircuts
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:33:20
In reply to Re: Hey Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on January 24, 2005, at 20:18:37
Maybe this will turn out like the 2001 Board. For the uninitiated, when Bob set up the 2000 Board, he also set up a 2001 Board for those who registered during that year. In the main, the 2001 registrants weren't in favor of separate Boards to begin with. The 2000 folks had wanted it for awhile. The 2000 Board has obviously served a purpose for a small group of people who got to know one another when this Board was infinitely smaller. The 2001 Board was never really used much and was deleted by Bob fairly early on.
Bob can't force anyone to join smaller boards. Maybe if the interest isn't there, the concept won't really go anywhere.
Mair
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:55:18
In reply to PB History, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:33:20
It might be helpful to hear from some members of the 2000 Board on this. I am of the impression, maybe entirely wrong, that many of the 2000 Board members simply don't use any of the Babble sites anywhere near as much as they used to, including the 2000 Board. There may be many reasons for this which are unrelated to the site, or at least unrelated to the 2000 Board.
While it's nice to take a break and come back again to some familiar names, I can also say that for me anyway, it's very hard to come back and get back into the rhythm of the Board. The longer you're away, the harder it is to feel comfortable returning. While Board participation yields obvious benefits for many of us, it's tough to sustain those benefits and connections unless you're actively here.
Is it possible that the more time one spends on a restricted Board, the less time they spend on an unrestricted Board AND at some point the restricted Board person might feel too disconnected from the people on the unrestricted Boards to jump back in?
My posited theory here, poorly articulated, is that members of smaller boards might find themselves drifting away from PB altogether unless 1) they've continued to participate fairly actively on the unrestricted boards; or 2) whatever small board they are on continues to stay active.
Just a theory
Mair
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:56:12
In reply to Re: small town groups » mair, posted by henrietta on January 24, 2005, at 20:08:49
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
In reply to And another thing, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:55:18
> by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think. So you really already have several "small town" boards.
They may feel like small towns to the regulars, but those who don't post there regularly, or even at all, might wish they could be more involved...
> This tells me that it's not size that you're intrigued with, so much as restrictions on use.
People do seem to hate the idea of restrictions!
Say there's a park. Should picnics there be open to everyone?
> > > 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
> >
> > If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while.
>
> This is a tough one because people take breaks from Babble all the time, in fact many of us see breaks as being beneficial, and sometimes they're necessitated by personal circumstances or recommended by Ts.Hmm... So maybe "a while" should be a relatively long time? The more spots that stayed open, the less active the board would be...
What if people could keep their spots, but the size of the group were then increased?
> > Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
>
> Here's a problem with your analogy. I live in a small town, and the notion that you get to know your neighbors more easily in small towns is a myth perpetuated by people who live in cities.Have you lived in a big city, too? And found it just as hard, or harder, to get to know your neighbors there?
Maybe it's another myth, but I do think this site, at least, did have a different feel when it was smaller.
> I also think this will make the Board seem incredibly less inviting ... You can restrict us from posting on certain boards; you can't restrict us from reading posts on restricted boards. So you're going to increase the number of instances where someone feels that they're on the outside, looking in.
Here's a projective test I just made up. Visualize a park that's being used for a number of different picnics. Do you feel:
a. Like leaving because you're excluded by the people there.
b. Like staying to have your own picnic.> Maybe if the interest isn't there, the concept won't really go anywhere.
I agree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating....
> My posited theory here ... is that members of smaller boards might find themselves drifting away from PB altogether unless 1) they've continued to participate fairly actively on the unrestricted boards; or 2) whatever small board they are on continues to stay active.
>
> MairI agree, but now there's only 1, so the addition of 2 would increase the chance of them staying, wouldn't it?
Also, if their small town board didn't stay active, they could move to a different one...
----
> I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join... "You can't say you can't play."
What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
> I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption.
How about private picnics in a public park?
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns.
OK, gated communities. Here's another projective test. Visualize a gated community. Now visualize yourself. Did you place yourself:
a. Inside the gated community.
b. Outside.----
> Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
> jujubeHow broke it is may be in the eyes of the beholder...
----
OK, so my idea is that some posters would like the feel of a small town board. I was thinking the way to find out would be to open some new boards and:
1. Impose a limit on their size.
But I suppose there are other potential approaches. For example:
2. Let their members decide what size they want them to be.
3. Just see to what size they grow "on their own".
Would those be more palatable? Or are there even better alternatives? Thanks, everyone, for your help in thinking this through...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
> Maybe it's another myth, but I do think this site, at least, did have a different feel when it was smaller.
Is that it, Dr. Bob? Nostalgia? It would be a better reason than research. You can't go back, you know. You can't recreate something that is past within something that has moved on. Maybe this isn't what you wanted Babble to be, but it's what it is. You'd have better luck starting a new site, unlinked to Babble, and doing it all over again.
> Here's a projective test I just made up. Visualize a park that's being used for a number of different picnics. Do you feel:
>
> a. Like leaving because you're excluded by the people there.
> b. Like staying to have your own picnic.You did indeed make that up. It's not even roughly analagous. Babble isn't an accomodation. It's a community. People don't come here because it's an accomodation. People come here because it's a community. It's *not* a park. Can't you see that? I'm crying to you - why can't you see that Babble is not a park! Parks are nice. Communities are nice. Babble is a community, not a park. Yahoo is a park. Oh please, Dr. Bob. Try to see the difference between Babble and Yahoo.
> > I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join... "You can't say you can't play."
>
> What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
>
Then it would be a right jolly game.
> > How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns.
>
> OK, gated communities. Here's another projective test. Visualize a gated community. Now visualize yourself. Did you place yourself:
>
> a. Inside the gated community.
> b. Outside.I can't answer that within the civility guidelines.
> Would those be more palatable? Or are there even better alternatives? Thanks, everyone, for your help in thinking this through...
>
> BobBetter would be removing restrictions from the table. Better would be creating so many little esoteric boards that you could accomplish your objective (if your objective is size) without rudeness. Don't list them all on the main set of links. Have one link leading to a submenu for "small discussion groups" or something. Let the posters choose the topic, if you wish. Don't monitor them for civility guidelines, if you wish. A poster could suggest whatever small discussion group they wanted, for people who love dogs, or people who live in Montana. It could be an area that charges fees, or an area with separate registration, or whatever would suit your purpose - without being rude and without excluding people.
Dr. Bob, Babble is not a park. Gated communities are not small towns. They're not picnics. Gated communities are dividers. Please see that if your goal is truly not to study restrictions that there are less offensive ways to meet your goal! Babble is not a park. It's a group of people who gather together for a common purpose. It's a school, or a church, or if you wish a very large therapy group. Imagine a church allowing Sunday School classes having socials where people could watch the party but not enter. Or a school having clubs that weren't open to all based on nothing more than whimsy, but whose meetings were on school grounds during recess.
Why can't you see!!! You may be providing a service by offering server space for this community. You *are* providing a service and we thank you. But Babble is more than the server space. We don't *love* a server space. We love a community. Don't break the community into gated areas. Don't divide the community. Please. Please, I beg you.
Posted by saw on January 25, 2005, at 7:42:53
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
I can't believe I started this. I wish I had never asked about reading other boards.
Dr Bob - please forget I ever asked. Please.
Sabrina
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.