![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 96 to 120 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 10:13:43
In reply to Dr. Bob, could we try something?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:18:11
One thing many people notice when reading the archives is that when Babble was much smaller you used to participate more. Babble's a terrific community, and perhaps it's frustrating to you to feel that you can't really participate in it any more? That if you answer one post, the expectation will be that you'll answer many and you just can't physically do that because there's not enough time in the day? And if you join in some conversations and not others, you'll be considered playing favorites?
I could be completely off base here, but I think it would be frustrating to want to laugh at a joke, or join in a conversation and feel constrained by circumstances to watch from an Olympian distance.
I remember back to high school and college. There were some teachers who managed to maintain respect and order while also participating in the classroom community. So I think it is possible to do.
If I'm completely nuts here, feel free to tell me so. I don't have a large data pool, so I won't be offended. I'm just trying to understand.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
In reply to An impertinent question, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 10:13:43
I spent all my life feeling like I didn't fit in anywhere.
I am deeply afraid that Babble is now going to prove I was right.
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
Is it my impertinent question that makes you feel like you don't fit in? :)
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 25, 2005, at 20:46:00
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
Dear Aunti Mel....
I am concerned.
What is going on?
We can't lose you.
you are important to my well being.
my best to you
Jai Narayan
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 20:55:17
In reply to Auntie Mel?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
Have I offended in some way? You never answered my "I miss you" post on Social, but I'm trying hard to be less self centered, and decided to assume you hadn't seen it.
But I do miss you and enjoy your company. If perchance I have in any way offended, I would like to have a chance to make amends?
On the other hand, I also perfectly understand just not feeling well.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2005, at 21:44:37
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
My interpretation of Auntie Mel's post was that she was expressing support for not having gated communities. That implementing gated communities would result in her feeling unwelcome.
Of course I have no idea really.
Hopefully she will come back to clarify...
Posted by jujube on January 25, 2005, at 23:44:01
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
> > Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> >
> > jujube
>
> How broke it is may be in the eyes of the beholder...
>
> BobI don't disagree with you, as I am sure that you will not disagree with me that it not needing fixing is also in the eye of the beholder(s). And, with all due respect, it would appear that those beholders who seem happy with the status quo have made their views known, but the beholder who sems to believe a change may be necessary, has not.
I guess at this point in a policy debate (which this is to some degree), the beholder who feels it is broke would do a number of things: describe the purpose(s) for which it was created and the goals the creater hoped to achieve by creating it; the positives and negatives of its evolution; how its evolution has either enhanced or taken away from its ability to fulfill the purpose for which it was created and options on how to improve it so that it can continue to achieve the goals of its creater while meeting the needs of its users.
Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
Anyway, just wanted to respond to your comment.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
In reply to Re: gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by jujube on January 25, 2005, at 23:44:01
> I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
>
> DinahI just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
--
> Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
>
> jujubeThanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 0:50:55
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
Posted by saw on January 26, 2005, at 1:36:35
In reply to Re: gated communities » saw, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:04:21
Posted by jujube on January 26, 2005, at 1:50:01
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
> > I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
>
> --
>
> > Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
> >
> > jujube
>
> Thanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
>
> BobFirst, I think Dinah said it best and made an extremely valid suggestion when she said: "Can you do what you've been asking others to do lately? Take a risk, expose a bit of yourself, and tell us what small town boards mean to you without trying to convince us that they'd be good for Babble?" That, I think, could be part of your packaging.
I won't presume to know what the concept means to you, but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that they would not really be "gated communities" or a "quiet park on a lake", but rather nice, cozy rooms. Kinda of like what happens at a house party - people start breaking off into smaller groups to different rooms to have more intimate conversations, while maintaining the comfortable notion that they can all join together in the same room when the need arises and start mixing it up again.
So, I guess you would need to package it in such a way that it feels safe, comfortable and accessible.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is almost 3 a.m. where I am, and I think I may actually almost be ready to fall asleep now. So, it's best if I quit while I can still spell at least.
Posted by jujube on January 26, 2005, at 3:12:22
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
your name. And they're always glad you came. ...
That's what I think of when I think of the 2000 board. Is that where you are going with your vision of smaller boards?
Sleep still eludes me, and now I am just getting corny and even more stupid. I'll shut up now.
Posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 4:47:30
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
And not unexpected.
Posted by mair on January 26, 2005, at 8:30:16
In reply to Message received Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 4:47:30
I'm pretty much against the notion of restricted boards, but I can see one instance (limited) where it might be a nice accommodation.
I never go to the meds board, and I know there are lots of people there who never venture off the meds board. A few years ago I used to regularly correspond with a poster who spent most of her time on the meds board. She told me that she had a pretty close back and forth relationship with a couple of other woman on that Board, and that they'd go to some lengths to throw something about meds into every few posts so Bob wouldn't move them over to Social. I think they didn't feel as comfortable over there because Social gets alot of activity and I think can seem foreboding if you aren't ever there and aren't familiar with most of the posters.
What about having a board or boards without permanent memberships which can be used on a temporary basis, perhaps for people who want to carry on an exchange on a smaller board as to topics which cross-over the separate topics of the subject boards? (not neither fish nor fowl, but both fish and fowl). So lets say you have 15 spots on Board #1 - 5 people from the meds board could maybe apply to Bob to be able to post on that Board for a limited time, perhaps as to a wider range of topics than they can on any one board. He could assign another small group to that same board until the spots are full. The idea is not that everyone on those Boards is connected in some way, although I guess they could be, but rather that each group of posters could carry on their exchanges without worrying that they were going to be bounced to another more subject specific board, and without feeling overwelmed by the sheer number of threads. So if you had 4 different groups all assigned to the same small board, you might just have 4 threads on the whole board.
I think these boards will feel far less restrictive if 1) group participation on the small board is time limited; and 2) you don't look at a small board as being a cohesive whole but rather a place for a number of small group to gather (the front porch of the corner store?) to discuss a topic or cross-over topics. You might even want to restrict the size of each group. If 3 people wander over there for a brief time, I might not feel as excluded as if 12 people were over there all as one group. Topics of discussion should either be multiple-subject topics (the fish and the fowl), or topics which can't be discussed as easily on the subject board where that group tends to "hang out." I'd love, for instance, to be able to occasionally have some meds discussions with the people on the psyche board, but that theoretically isn't supposed to happen.
I guess this is not so much creating new boards for specific people as it is making board space available for a small group of people to congregate for a brief time. I also think the topics discussed on the small board by a smaller group shouldn't radically change while they're there. This would serve to encourage them to remain active on the subject boards as to topics which should be available to everyone for discussion.
Mair
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
In reply to Auntie Mel?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
Dinah: You haven't done anything to bother me. If anything, you realize as much, if not more than most what it feels like to be the last picked in dodge ball.
Jai: Thank you so much. Your presence means a whole, whole lot to me, too. You have such a pure and kind heart - we should all want to be like you.
I haven't looked at social in a while. I'll take a peek today.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:56:19
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
A hefty bag would do nicely.
The 2000 board was a wonderful idea. It had a *reason* to exist.
But groups based on 'first come, first serve' or alphabetical or any other random thing? What's the point?
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 26, 2005, at 10:22:03
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
> > I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
>
> Bob
>
> > Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
> >
> > jujube
>
> Thanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
>
> Bob
------------------------------------------------I think you like the idea of the small town boards simply because it gives you a new environment in which to study the posters. Why else would you be pushing it so hard??
It's a big effort, it will require more of your time....so, what's in it for Dr. Bob? ;-) Ahh...you've already shown an interest in the study of VLG's. The small town concept is sn an academic field of study, which you seem to want their help in marketing at Babble. At least you've fessed up to the marketing part....
I'm not saying you are going to publish anything (are you?), but at least would say that you want to study what will happen here if the small groups were instituted? Honestly goes a LONG way in getting what you want.
emmy the cynic
Posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 12:27:21
In reply to Re: Dinah Jai, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
Whew. I couldn't think of anything offhand, but you never know.
My post to you in Social is probably a few archives old. You see, I've been missing you for a while.
I know all about not feeling well, and even about withdrawing when I don't feel well. It's probably in the best interests of the board in my case when I do withdraw when I don't feel well. lol. But sometimes I withdraw too much, and it really helps to reach out a bit.
My babblemail is on if you need a hand to reach out to.
Dinah
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 13:04:49
In reply to Re: Auntie Mel, posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 12:27:21
I just babblemailed you a copy of the same thing I just emailed partlycloudy.
It's too much to type again. It's also too much to post - no one would believe me.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 26, 2005, at 16:19:05
In reply to Re: attractive packaging » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:56:19
Not be to crude but it's not change that many to some of us dislike it is the bad idea we dislike. It is your board and I could package my dogs turds up in a robins egg blue Tiffany's box but not many would want to eat or wear it :)
> A hefty bag would do nicely.
>
> The 2000 board was a wonderful idea. It had a *reason* to exist.
>
> But groups based on 'first come, first serve' or alphabetical or any other random thing? What's the point?
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 26, 2005, at 16:23:53
In reply to Studying VLG's vs. picnics » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on January 26, 2005, at 10:22:03
You have a point maybe he could assign one student/research assistant/person to one group of small town and and each would have their own small group of rats to watch over...thus the inconsistency in actions taken in civil would be less obvious?
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I think you like the idea of the small town boards simply because it gives you a new environment in which to study the posters. Why else would you be pushing it so hard??
>
> It's a big effort, it will require more of your time....so, what's in it for Dr. Bob? ;-) Ahh...you've already shown an interest in the study of VLG's. The small town concept is sn an academic field of study, which you seem to want their help in marketing at Babble. At least you've fessed up to the marketing part....
>
> I'm not saying you are going to publish anything (are you?), but at least would say that you want to study what will happen here if the small groups were instituted? Honestly goes a LONG way in getting what you want.
>
> emmy the cynic
>
>
>
Posted by jujube on January 26, 2005, at 16:44:15
In reply to Re: attractive packaging/ Dr. Bob and all, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 26, 2005, at 16:19:05
I apologize for inserting myself in this discussion and causing problems with my comments. I, personally, do not see any merit in creating these smaller, exclusive boards. I just like to have as much information as possible before I vehemently discard a new idea, and feel that, at this point, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how such a concept would be worth pursuing. I loathe the elitist, screened-membership policies of exclusive country club style organizations, and would, personslly, avoid anything that even remotely resembled such an entity. And, I have always lived my life in such a way so as to ensure that nobody feels left out, without a voice or insignificant or unworthy in any way.
Anyways, time for me to exit this discussion. Again, sorry if I offended anyone.
> Not be to crude but it's not change that many to some of us dislike it is the bad idea we dislike. It is your board and I could package my dogs turds up in a robins egg blue Tiffany's box but not many would want to eat or wear it :)
>
> > A hefty bag would do nicely.
> >
> > The 2000 board was a wonderful idea. It had a *reason* to exist.
> >
> > But groups based on 'first come, first serve' or alphabetical or any other random thing? What's the point?
>
>
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 17:11:01
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
I moved to a small town once when I was a kid. If you weren't third generation you didn't have a chance. Even the kids were that way. Exclusionary..............I didn't like being excluded.
On the other hand, one time while house hunting we heard of a neighborhood that sounded perfect for us. When we drove up and found out it was gated, we turned around. We didn't want to live where friends couldn't just drop by..............I don't want to exclude others either.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 18:15:28
In reply to Small town? Gated community? Ick to both!!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 17:11:01
I really am puzzled why people are SO VERY opposed to the notion.
This seems to be bringing up really strong feelings / memories of being excluded / rejected and so forth.
Some people may like to have the opportunity to be a member of a smaller board.
I would like to have a go.
But I think I would be a little afraid to take up the opportunity even if it were offered knowing just how vehemently some people are opposed to the notion.Is it just me, or have things been a little quiter over on 2000 too?
(Nosey, nosey me).
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 26, 2005, at 23:04:17
In reply to Re: Dinah Jai, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
thank you.
It's good to hear from you again.
I feel your comments about me reflect your good heart.
yours
Ja*
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.