![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 536. Go back in thread:
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*
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 27, 2005, at 22:16:12
In reply to Re: Small town? Gated community?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 18:15:28
I don't know but here is a thought. I was always in person the cheerleader popular kinda gal....but say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them. It could be bad and what about learning from those who share all views? The whole idea stinks IMO and well I know youre not from the USA but it reeks of the blacks and whites riding on a different bus..to me.
It would be shocking if some of the cliques were broken up and stuck with people they obviously avoid posting to. Just a thought...again it is Bobs board and his call.> 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 Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
In reply to Re: Small town? Gated community? » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 27, 2005, at 22:16:12
> 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.
I like that image, thanks! At house parties, do people feel excluded from those conversations?
> Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows 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?
>
> jujubeThat's the idea, but I'm having trouble getting there...
--
> Message received Dr. Bob
> And not unexpected.
>
> DinahI get the feeling I've disappointed you?
--
> 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.
>
> MairSo it would be better if the small groups were very small, approved by me, given a brief time, and limited to specific topics? In other words, if *they* were the ones who were restricted? :-)
--
> A hefty bag would do nicely.
>
> AuntieMel:-)
--
> 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.
It would be a new environment, that's true. I do like to try new things...
> 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?
>
> emmy the cynic1. Of course I want to see what would happen!
2. There might be research later, but in that case, it would be up to you whether to be involved or not.
3. Wouldn't a publication be more interesting if it were about something that worked?
How did you get to be a cynic, may I ask?
--
> say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them.
>
> Fallen4MyTDid I propose doing that?
--
> This seems to be bringing up really strong feelings / memories of being excluded / rejected and so forth.
>
> alexandra_kI think so, too. Maybe also envy?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:20:35
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
I think mainly disgust, Dr. Bob.
Nice cozy rooms don't have bars on the doors. Nice cozy rooms in private clubs do. Private clubs don't open their doors for others to see but not participate. It's rude, plain and simple.
And I think it's against the civility rules for nice cozy posters to tell others they don't want them to join in their conversations. Or if it's not, it should be.
Don't pretty it up, Dr. Bob. If you want to study restrictions and don't care about anything else, say so.
If you want cozy rooms, create cozy rooms. Drop the restrictions. The fact that restrictions are a necessary part of your vision, and all other suggestions are ignored lead me to believe your motives are less than what I would like to expect from you.
And it's quite uncivil of you to assume envy is at the root of distaste for the idea, when posters have been more than enormously clear what is at the root of distaste for the idea. And Dr. Bob, think about it. Do you honestly believe that I, or Gabbi, or Mel (just as examples) would possibly feel envious of the posters inside a restricted room? I assure you envy would not enter the picture one bit for me.
How about doing us the courtesy of believing what we say.
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:24:30
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
>
>
> > Message received Dr. Bob
> > And not unexpected.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I get the feeling I've disappointed you?
Won't be the first or last time, Dr. Bob. And it's not the biggest disappointment from you this week even.
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
Save us the pain that comes from trying when we are in effect impotent.
Just tell us:
It's my board and I can do what I want. I don't have to explain my reasons. It doesn't matter what my proposed research is. "Cohesiveness and feelings of belonging within a gated community in a VLG." "Gated communities and divisiveness within a VLG. Is there any difference between this and real life?" or even "How many insults to their integrity does it take to drive some of these internet junkie mealworms away?" It's my board and if you don't like it you can go to Psychcentral.
Wouldn't that be more honest and cause us less pain in the long run, Dr. Bob?
Hope hurts sometimes you know. Just rip it away. Tell us how powerless we are. It would be a kindness in the long run.
Posted by saw on January 28, 2005, at 8:01:23
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 8:04:36
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms - No, gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:20:35
> If you want cozy rooms, create cozy rooms. Drop the restrictions.
But would they stay cozy without restrictions?
> The fact that restrictions are a necessary part of your vision, and all other suggestions are ignored lead me to believe your motives are less than what I would like to expect from you.
Sorry, what suggestions have I ignored? I did propose a couple other potential approaches myself:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050116/msgs/447236.html
> And it's quite uncivil of you to assume envy is at the root of distaste for the idea
I'm sorry if I implied that I assumed it was at the root of anyone's distaste.
Bob
Posted by mair on January 28, 2005, at 13:00:43
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Check your email
Posted by AuntieMel on January 28, 2005, at 13:32:31
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
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.