![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 389 to 413 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 9:28:54
In reply to Re: youngsters?? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 9:02:04
You are right, but with a pb teens there would need to be extra hooks. Just the word 'teen' would bring some creeps out of the woods.
And the one for those of us who are 'more mature?' Possible names:
PB-aarp
PB-OldF*rt
PB-GeezerThis could be fun. The criteria for getting in? Maybe that you didn't notice the "sexual side-effects" of your anti-depressant?
I could go on ....
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 10:42:26
In reply to Re: youngsters?? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 9:28:54
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 17:57:21
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
> Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
Sorry if you didn't mean that seriously, Dr. Bob. You should know better than to not be literal with me.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 26, 2005, at 18:55:23
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
I wouldn't be concerned about what other posters were saying about me because I'd expect the civility rules would still apply. As far as gossip goes, it would be more likely to happen with babblemail and just as likely to happen with Yahoo Groups.
> > That was what that was about.
> > You can say you don't like them [the new boards] etc.
> > But I think you aren't really supposed to call them [posters who join them] 'names'.
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> Thanks for summarizing the previous discussion! I just added a little emphasis above...
>
Dr. Bob saying you don't like something is rather limiting, without being able to say why.
What was offensive wasn't that you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 26, 2005, at 18:55:23
> > if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?
>
> a) is that any different from babble mail?
> b) I presume the same civility standards would ave to be adhered toHmm, you have a point there... I think people are more "flammable" interacting as a group than as individuals, but I hadn't taken the civility standards into account...
If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose? Thanks for thinking this through with me...
> Plus, an addition of a rule not to discuss anyone that couldn't see / post on that board would completely remove any worry.
>
> NikkiBelieve it or not, I'd rather not add any new rules unless it were really necessary...
> > --
> >
> > > I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...
> >
> > Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
> >
> I'll ask him. He does have training in the field of community building and that's his second job, or one of them. I'd be happy to help him forward his credentials to you if he's interested. But I'm not sure he would be. Although he completely agrees with me on this issue, he may feel that it is a conflict of interest. And also he doesn't much like the internet. I hope you understand how much both Babble and this issue mean to me in that I'm willing to sacrifice my privacy for it.Great, let's see what he says. If there are too many issues with involving him, maybe he could recommend someone else?
> > > Maybe I just get inordinately distressed.
> >
> > More than just ordinately?
> >
> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. Doesn't inordinately mean more than just ordinately? Am I missing a smile? Or are you trying to hint at something?Sorry about that. What I had in mind was the possibility of your own issues possibly playing a role in your reaction, but you had already acknowledged that yourself when you said Falls would say there was old pain...
> Am I still entitled to wear white?
>
> DinahAnyone who would like to wear white may do so. :-)
--
> you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
>
> Gabbi-x-2Sorry, did I get carried away? It's fine to say how you feel about the idea of smaller groups as long as the people who would join them aren't negatively characterized.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 1:12:52
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
> If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose? Thanks for thinking this through with me...
I guess people would have to sign up to have a look. Lots of stuff is done that way on the internet.
I joined up to another site where you could see the board but you had to join to read the threads. That might be another option.
> > you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
> Sorry, did I get carried away? It's fine to say how you feel about the idea of smaller groups as long as the people who would join them aren't negatively characterized.
Thanks for clarifying. I think it was a bit confusing. I wasn't sure whether you were making that distinction or not.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 6:22:40
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
Choose? I thought you had dropped the entire idea of choosing because of the potential for it to be incredibly hurtful to be chosen or not chosen. Less enlightened schools than my sons have at least dropped choosies.
I can't believe I got that wrong.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
Hmmm...
I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in, thus risking public rejection and humiliation. Do the people who wish to join have to go, hat in hand, and sit anxiously while their fate is decided? Oh well, I suppose they would also realize and accept the possibility of rejection and humiliation.
Who *are* you, Dr. Bob? Don't you think of these things?
Posted by AuntieMel on April 27, 2005, at 15:31:08
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
If I remember it right anyone could choose to join a group until it reached 'some' number. First come, first serve.
I don't think you had to be voted in, like a country club.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 27, 2005, at 16:50:22
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
> > Gabbi-x-2
>
> Sorry, did I get carried away?All the way to Greece..
Thanks for the apology.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 18:16:20
In reply to Re: choosing » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 27, 2005, at 15:31:08
I was thinking about the other side too. But I can't worry about the world. As I said, they would know what they were getting into.
I just have trouble figuring out Dr. Bob's mind sometimes. I'd love to have a peek inside for a minute or two.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 21:21:31
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
BTW, he's thinking. If he says no, I'll ask if he has any colleagues who might be willing.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in
Hmm. I guess I wouldn't see it as a popularity thing whether other people joined me or not. I would think they were deciding on whether they wanted to join a small board or not rather than deciding whether they wanted to join me in particular or not.
>thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
So I guess I wouldn't feel rejected or humiliated if other people didn't join in.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 0:35:27
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
> I can see that would feel safer, not having the whole world watching.
Okay, that has been worrying me and I have to say
EEP! DON'T SAY THAT!
The current boards aren't like that.
no
NO
I much prefer the 'illusion' of privacy :-(
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2005, at 5:18:20
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
I understood from what Dr. Bob said that there would be more than one small group and that people would choose which one to join. Unless the groups had themes or something, that choice would presumably be based on who was already in it, or how fun they seemed or something. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps it would just be one group at a time until it filled.
At any rate, as I said, I'm not going to worry about it.
The divider of glass aspect is of more interest to me, as it affects the Babble community as a whole.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> > If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose?
>
> I guess people would have to sign up to have a look. Lots of stuff is done that way on the internet.
>
> alexandra_kI guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in, thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
>
> DinahI suppose. But posting (especially starting a new thread) is already like that, you never know if anyone's going to reply...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 11:48:04
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
> I guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
You could make it that you can only sign up to ONE small board. If you don't post for x amount of time then you lose your place. Then you would be free to sign up to another.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 12:16:17
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
Are you actually open to the idea of making the private boards non-public? Or am I just setting myself up for a lot of anger if I even think it's possible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 22:41:38
In reply to Re: How would they choose? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 12:16:17
> Are you actually open to the idea of making the private boards non-public?
I'm happy to consider it. But you know I can be hard to convince sometimes...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 3:31:38
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 22:41:38
Then I'd best not try.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2005, at 11:50:37
In reply to Re: How would they choose? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 11:48:04
> You could make it that you can only sign up to ONE small board. If you don't post for x amount of time then you lose your place. Then you would be free to sign up to another.
Sorry about dropping the ball here. What do you think a reasonable x amount of time would be?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 18:01:58
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2005, at 11:50:37
I guess it depends on how active you want the small boards to be.
How active they are would be determined by the number of posters to the board and the frequency with which they post.
2000 might give you some indication.
I don't know how many regular posters there are over there, or how active the board is in terms of how often the posters post to there.If you want it more active then I guess you would want either more posters or posters to post more frequently.
I don't know...
2 weeks sounds reasonable to me...
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 11, 2005, at 10:36:44
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 18:01:58
What about when someone goes on Vacation?
In Europe 2 weeks is a normal vacation, 3 weeks my person minimum, 6 weeks about right *L*
Seriously.. can you do something that someone can put themselves "on hold" while holidaying? I'd hate to be thrown out of a group just cos I was having some fun!
Nikki x
Posted by alexandra_k on May 11, 2005, at 18:38:45
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » alexandra_k, posted by Nikkit2 on May 11, 2005, at 10:36:44
> What about when someone goes on Vacation?
Couldn't you post a little something while on vacation?
Just enough to tell the rest of us what fun you are having?
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2005, at 1:45:19
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » Nikkit2, posted by alexandra_k on May 11, 2005, at 18:38:45
I've only just noticed that I posted that to yo and not Dr Bob, sorry!!
And, well, I do tend to pop in briefly while away.. but my holidays don't always take me places I *can* get online! *l*
Though this year is gonna be the US, so me thinks that will be fine *L*
Nikki x
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.